Over 200 Crypto Firms Urge Senate to Fast‑Track CLARITY Act Vote
Crypto industry groups representing more than 200 companies are ramping up pressure on the US Senate to move quickly on the CLARITY Act, warning that political timelines and legislative inertia could cause a critical opportunity to be missed ahead of the midterm elections.
In a letter sent Monday to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the coalition called for the CLARITY Act to be brought to the Senate floor “without delay.” The appeal was coordinated by several of the sector’s most prominent advocacy organizations and reflects growing concern that the bill is stalling just as it gains momentum.
The letter notes that the Senate Banking Committee’s approval of the bill last month was the culmination of “months of serious, bipartisan work” and argues that leadership now has a narrow window to capitalize on that progress. According to the groups, the Senate should “build on that momentum and give members the opportunity to advance durable market structure legislation” rather than allowing the effort to fade in a crowded pre‑election agenda.
At the heart of the CLARITY Act is a basic question that has dogged the US crypto sector for years: which federal agency is in charge of what? The bill seeks to set out a formal division of authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), clarifying how each regulator oversees digital asset markets. Despite broad agreement that today’s patchwork of enforcement actions and guidance-by-press-release is unsustainable, lawmakers and stakeholders remain at odds over key details, leading to repeated delays in the Senate.
Traditional banking interests and crypto-native firms are clashing over some of the bill’s most sensitive provisions. Banking groups have pushed hard for strict limits, including an outright ban on platforms paying yield on stablecoins – a core business model for many digital asset firms. On the other side, crypto lobbyists are fighting to secure explicit protections for developers of decentralized platforms, arguing that builders of open-source protocols should not be treated as centralized intermediaries or be held liable for how others use their code.
Those disagreements have produced months of negotiations and redrafting behind closed doors. Industry groups say the result is still a workable compromise and insist that the Senate should now be allowed to debate and vote on the text rather than letting further wrangling run out the clock.
The letter is signed by several major trade associations, including Stand With Crypto, The Digital Chamber, the Blockchain Association and the Crypto Council for Innovation. Collectively, they claim to speak for hundreds of firms ranging from exchanges and custodians to infrastructure providers and venture investors.
According to the signatories, passing the CLARITY Act would help ensure that “crypto jobs, investment and market activity” remain in the United States instead of migrating to jurisdictions perceived as more predictable or permissive. The bill’s backers argue that clear, comprehensive rules would position the US as a “global leader in digital asset innovation” rather than a market defined by regulatory hostility and legal uncertainty.
“Digital asset markets are global, growing, and central to the future of financial infrastructure,” the letter states. “The question before Congress is whether that future will be built in the United States – under U.S. law, U.S. oversight, and American values – or continue moving to offshore jurisdictions with less transparency, weaker consumer protections, and limited accountability.”
Despite the growing pressure, Senate leadership has yet to carve out floor time for the CLARITY Act before the November midterms. That lack of movement has prompted policy analysts and market observers to cut their expectations that the bill will become law this year.
Research from Galaxy Digital recently reduced the probability of passage in this Congress to 60%, down from an earlier estimate of 75%. Analysts there argue that the practical deadline is the August recess: if the bill is not approved by the Senate before lawmakers leave Washington in late July, the legislative window “effectively closes” as the election dominates the political calendar.
The legislative path is complicated by the fact that two separate committees – Agriculture and Banking – have jurisdiction over different parts of crypto regulation. Each panel has already approved its own version of the CLARITY framework, dealing respectively with commodities and securities issues. These texts now need to be reconciled into a single package before the full Senate can begin formal debate, adding another layer of procedural complexity and potential delay.
Beyond the tug-of-war between industry and banks, lawmakers themselves are insisting on further changes before they will commit their support. Several senators have flagged the need for tougher provisions on ethics and the policing of illicit finance if the bill is to attract the 60 votes required to pass without being tied up in extended procedural fights.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a key backer of the legislation, said in an interview last week that negotiators are working through concerns around conflicts of interest, financial transparency for policymakers engaging with the sector, and stronger tools to combat money laundering, sanctions evasion and terrorist financing using digital assets. According to Lummis, failure to address these issues could cause support to evaporate once the bill reaches the floor.
Galaxy Digital says it has seen no clear indication that the outstanding disputes have been resolved or that talks have meaningfully advanced in recent weeks, fueling worries that the process may quietly stall rather than culminate in a vote.
For the crypto industry, the stakes go beyond one piece of legislation. The CLARITY Act is widely seen as a test of whether the US can design a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets through the normal legislative process, rather than relying on case-by-case enforcement and decades-old statutes. Supporters argue that without such a law, businesses will continue to face contradictory signals, unpredictable lawsuits and a continual risk that new products will be deemed illegal after the fact.
A number of firms have already responded to that uncertainty by scaling back US operations, delaying product launches or shifting growth plans abroad. Advocates for the bill warn that if Congress fails to act, this slow “regulatory offshoring” will accelerate, pushing high-value engineering jobs, investment capital and emerging financial infrastructure into rival hubs in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
At the same time, critics of the current draft caution that moving too fast could entrench loopholes or leave consumers exposed. Some policymakers fear that a poorly calibrated law might legitimize speculative or risky practices under the banner of innovation, especially if rules on disclosures, conflicts of interest and custody remain weaker than in traditional finance. They argue that any framework must put investor protection and financial stability on par with competitiveness.
One of the most contentious questions is how the CLARITY Act will treat decentralized finance (DeFi) and autonomous protocols. Industry groups want language that clearly distinguishes between centralized intermediaries that take custody of customer assets and noncustodial software that users control themselves. Regulators, however, worry that overly broad exemptions could allow de facto intermediaries to hide behind decentralization claims while still profiting from user activity and avoiding responsibility.
Another flashpoint is stablecoins. Banking groups pushing for a ban on yield‑bearing stablecoin products argue that these instruments can function like unregulated deposit accounts or money market funds, introducing systemic risks outside the traditional banking perimeter. Crypto firms counter that stablecoin yields are often tied to transparent, on‑chain activity such as lending or liquidity provision and can be structured safely with appropriate disclosure and capital requirements.
For investors and builders trying to plan around these debates, the CLARITY Act’s fate will heavily influence product design and business strategy. A clear allocation of authority between the SEC and CFTC could determine whether many tokens are treated primarily as securities or commodities, affecting everything from exchange listings and trading rules to disclosures and enforcement exposure. It will also shape how easily new instruments – such as tokenized real-world assets or programmable stablecoins – can be issued and traded in the US.
If the bill passes in a form broadly acceptable to both regulators and industry, it could unlock a wave of institutional participation that has so far been held back by compliance and legal fears. Pension funds, insurance companies and large asset managers generally require a stable regulatory framework before allocating significant capital to new markets. Advocates believe that a clear statute would finally provide that baseline.
If, however, the CLARITY Act stalls or is watered down beyond recognition, the most likely outcome is a continuation of today’s incremental, enforcement‑led status quo. In that scenario, the SEC and CFTC would keep shaping the market through lawsuits, settlements and guidance, while Congress watches from the sidelines. For many in the industry, that is precisely the outcome they hope this last‑minute lobbying blitz can still prevent.