美国加密市场结构法案因利益冲突争议在参议院被否决

the most heavily lobbyed piece of legislation in crypto's history just went to the Senate floor and lost 49 to 50. But the weird thing is the Senate didn't reject the Clarity Act. It actually refused to debate it at all because that vote wasn't about passing anything. It was a closure vote on the motion to proceed, which is political language for are we allowed to start talking about this. So, two years of lobbying work and a crypto war chest that started the cycle at $193 million and the industry still couldn't buy permission to open the conversation.

So, what actually killed Clarity and what happens now? Well, to answer those questions, we'll look at why a technical market structure bill became a political issue, why the timing makes this final, and who ends up writing crypto's rule book now that Congress has walked away from it. My name is Guy and this is the Coin Bureau. So, what was actually on the table here? Well, Clarity was supposed to be the ultimate crypto rule book.

It drew a line between two agencies. The CFTC, which would take primary oversight of decentralized coins like Bitcoin, and the SEC, which would keep the ones still behaving like securities. It set a definitive test for when a token stops being a security. structured around whether insiders still have control over supply and governance. It gave exchanges a federal registration path and customer fund segregation rules written specifically so nobody could commingle client money the way FTX did.

And it carved out protections for developers, node operators, and validators. It was also intended to sit on top of the Genius Act, the stablecoin law signed last year. So, stable coins already have their statute and market structure was the missing half. And the House had done its part a long time ago, passing the bill 294 to 134 in July 2025 with 78 Democrats voting for it. That is about as bipartisan as crypto has ever been in Washington.

So then, how does a bill with that much momentum die in the Senate? Well, because somewhere in the 14 months it spent stuck there, it became a partisan issue. Every month of delay attached another argument to it, and by September, none of those arguments were about crypto market structure. No, they were about one family's crypto portfolio. President Trump reported more than $1.4 4 billion in crypto-related income for 2025 spread across World Liberty Financial, the USD1 stable coin and the Trump memecoin launched days before his second inauguration.

World Liberty is run with involvement from Don Jr. and Eric Trump and it secured conditional approval from the OC for a national trust bank charter. The widely held view of that was that Trump had become the first president to approve, operate, and regulate a bank connected to his own family. And that's the backdrop every Democrat was voting against. The sponsors knew this. And over last weekend, Senators Lumis, Boozeman, and Scott released a 635page substitute text with more than 100 Democrat requested changes, including a lastminute ethics package.

That package barred the president, vice president, members of Congress, judges, and their spouses from issuing new digital assets while in office, forced divestment or blind trusts above a $15,000 interest, and even gave state attorneys general standing to sue. The White House had resisted that last one for months. But the Democrats read that and said, "Nope." And their objections were quite specific. The ban only applied going forward.

So, it touched nothing already earned. Also, it covered issuing tokens, not stable coin reserve interest or equity sales, which is where most of the money actually was. Enforcement depended on a justice department headed by Todd Blanch, Trump's former personal defense lawyer. And per the more detailed accounts, the whole thing was written to expire in January 2029. Anyway, Senator Elizabeth Warren called it quote, "A weak fig leaf that will do nothing to stop him from making his next $1.4 billion in crypto profits."

Senator Lumis said the text was as good as it's going to get. And well, that was that. In the 2024 cycle, the crypto industry's main political spending network, Fairshake, raised over $260 million and spent $140 million across more than 70 congressional races, including around $40 million targeting a single Ohio senator. Coinbase put in $86 million cumulatively, Ripple 45 million. So going into 2026, Fairshake carried a war chest of about $193 million and by midyear filings had raised nearly $137 million more for the cycle.

Public Citizens Tracking had crypto, AI, and online betting accounting for over $294 million of corporate election spending in the first 15 months of the cycle with crypto the largest sector of the whole lot. And fair shakedback candidates won 50 of 54 contested primaries. So, the industry did everything it possibly could to push its interests, but apparently it couldn't buy the remaining votes it needed. And that's because the obstacle was a live battle over conflict of interest involving a sitting president.

And there's no campaign contribution that resolves that. Which brings us to the unfortunate reality that this probably spells the end of the Clarity Act, at least in its current form. The Senate never passed its own version of the bill, so there's nothing for lawmakers to merge with the version that already passed the House. And time is basically gone. The House has already left Washington to campaign while the Senate is about to head into its own break before the midterms.

Now, as you can see, crypto regulation can change direction sharply in just a matter of days, which makes these stories very easy to lose track of if you're not watching them closely. So, to make sure you don't miss the major developments that impact your portfolio, come and join us over on the Coinb Telegram channel. That's where we share breaking news on Chain Alpha and the market updates that matter the second they land.

To get involved, just hit the link down in the description or scan the QR code on screen. Now, just because the Clarity Act didn't go as planned doesn't mean Washington forgets all about crypto. Back in March, the SEC and CFTC jointly said major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum should be treated as commodities rather than securities. They also put staking, mining, and certain airdrops outside securities treatment.

Then just last month, SEC Chair Paul Atkins proposed a much broader crypto rule book and the two agencies signed a memorandum of understanding agreeing to coordinate their approach. Over at the CFTC, Chairman Mike Selig directed staff to explore market structure rules using existing authority. In his words, to help the president deliver if Congress will not. So, crypto asked Congress for a law and ended up getting the regulators instead.

But really, for the industry right now, that doesn't seem like much of a loss because both chairs are about as crypto friendly as they've ever been. But there is something important worth mentioning here. Atkins built those rules explicitly as a bridge. He said the framework drew heavily on clarity and would give the agencies a head start implementing the market structure legislation he trusted would soon reach the president's desk.

He said that before the 15th of September vote. The agencies never intended to be the permanent answer but they have essentially become it by default. And even celic has said that legislation is the most reliable approach because a law is considerably harder for a future administration to reverse. A proposed regulatory rule can be rescinded, challenged under the administrative procedure act or unwound by a future congress through the congressional review act.

For a bit of context, Commissioner Hester Pur, who led the crypto task force this whole framework grew out of, is expected to depart in November, which would leave the SEC with two sitting commissioners mid rulemaking. And Celig has been operating a