Less Regulations Coming!

[zasad@]

@zasad@. Similar to your argument, this article is also arguing that if the Clarity act will not be approved and signed into law, they speculate that it will be okay. This is headshaking, I reckon. How can they predict that there will be no Gensler 2.0 hehehehre. I predict that he will become the secretary of treasury if the next president is an anticrypto Democrat.



Wall Street may finally get a clearer crypto rulebook it has spent years waiting for when Washington passes a market structure bill on Tuesday. But even if it doesn’t, financial institutions are unlikely to stop building in the digital assets business.

The Senate’s expected vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) could give banks, brokers and asset managers more certainty about how they can trade and build products around digital assets. While passage could accelerate that work and bring more traditional firms into the market, failure may be less of a roadblock than it once would have been.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/09/14/even-if-clarity-fails-wall-street-s-crypto-push-is-unlikely-to-stop

If you want my comments, I can provide them.
The experts' job is to publish opinions, while CoinDesk's job is to compile those opinions into articles and sell paid subscriptions. Everyone is busy working and making a profit, regardless of whether the bill passes. It’s an ideal system
In all seriousness, I want to get the results of the Senate hearings on the Clarity Act.

__
BREAKING: US Senate Fails to Advance Crypto CLARITY Act, Here’s What It Means
https://cryptopotato.com/breaking-us-senate-fails-to-advance-crypto-clarity-act-heres-what-this-means/

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Yes, this is a bad and sorrowful occurrence for the future of the cryptospace in America. We also can expect that on their midterm elections, this will be much Democrats that will have the victory.

In any case, this article implies that there was frustration from the Republicans because the Democrats were taking the bill hostage. However, it is headshaking that the Democrats were making it appear that the Republicans did not want to be bipartisan heheheheeh.



Senator Cynthia Lummis' disappointment was already palpable the day before the U.S. Senate shot down the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. She stood on a stage at a crypto event in Washington and talked about how she'd worked on the bill for more than five years — the bulk of her career as a senator.

But the Democrats said they were making an effort to continue talks down to the wire, and they were rebuffed by Republicans who shut down the negotiation and proceeded with the vote. (The vote didn't have to happen on Tuesday afternoon, and it could have been shifted by Republican leaders if there were still a chance for negotiations.)

"Just as Democrats and Republicans were making progress to address ethics concerns, Republican leadership ended talks and forced a vote," said Democrat Senator Ruben Gallego in a statement after the Tuesday vote. "They were never serious about bipartisan negotiations."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters much the same on Tuesday.

“As you may have heard, there was a bipartisan deal on the table as recently as this afternoon to resolve all outstanding items including ethics," Schumer said. “Republican leadership walked into the room, broke up the bipartisan discussion and said, 'No, we’re done' and killed it."

For her part, Lummis argued that the counter offer she saw from Democrats on Monday was essentially the same position they'd taken before the Senate left on its August recess.

And in a statement after the vote, she blamed the Democrats, calling them "anti-American" (despite the fact that a handful of the no votes came from her fellow Republicans).

"This afternoon, Senate Democrats proved they were never truly serious about protecting consumers and preserving American leadership," she said. "I sat at the table with Senate Democrats working in good faith to get this done while they played games."

Meanwhile, the Democrats who voted no will blaze into the final weeks of the midterm election season criticizing the crypto dealings of the president, and the Republicans will accuse Democrats of destroying U.S. innovation (while hoping that the crypto industry’s campaign funds spend millions opposing their political foes).

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/news-analysis/2026/09/15/there-were-many-conductors-in-the-derailment-of-the-crypto-industry-s-clarity-act

[zasad@]

bbc.reporter, and I agree with cz
https://x.com/cz_binance/status/2100075501662679311
"Interesting summary 👇. If there is any silver lining, stablecoins (can) continue to have yield.

There will always be set backs along the way, but technology advance continues. Onwards."

That means the time for this bill has not yet come. However, if the process drags on into 2027, the market will still take shape through regulators and judicial practice.
I don't see any other buyers of US Treasuries in the market.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. The will be no more process to continue on 2027 because the Clarity act is dead. The lawmakers on the side Republicans will need to create another bill and open it for argument again. This will be a new process on a lawmaking body where this will be dominated by Democrats after the midterm elections. The cryptospace should accept the defeat at the present and congratulate Jamie Dimon and his protesting nuns hehehehehehee.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. The will be no more process to continue on 2027 because the Clarity act is dead. The lawmakers on the side Republicans will need to create another bill and open it for argument again. This will be a new process on a lawmaking body where this will be dominated by Democrats after the midterm elections. The cryptospace should accept the defeat at the present and congratulate Jamie Dimon and his protesting nuns hehehehehehee.

Even American analysts disagree with you.

"While the measure could be reintroduced next year in the new Congress, “much of the bill would have to be reworked,” Katz added. Democrats are widely expected to take control of the House, with Senate control still up in the air.

“Lawmakers wouldn’t quite be starting from scratch, but it would probably feel like that to the bill’s proponents,” he said. “It’s also possible that Democratic demands would be so unpleasant for the crypto industry that it might prefer no bill at all.”"

In the U.S., any bill must go through a debate process that can last for years. To conclude this process, a procedural vote requiring 60 votes is needed, after which a final vote takes place.
You are right that Democrats can prolong this process for a very long time, but Republicans can do the same with Democratic bills

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Where is the disagreement? The Clarity act did not pass the vote after the Donald agreed to the demands of the ethics committee.

They are making it appear that the Clarity act can continue through a new bill, however, after the midterm elections where anticrypto Democrats will outnumber procrypto Republicans, I reckon the procrypto Republicans will not be very brave to begin the fight for another cryptospace bill again heheheeh. The chance of the Clarity act was this year before the midterm elections. It has failed.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. Where is the disagreement? The Clarity act did not pass the vote after the Donald agreed to the demands of the ethics committee.

They are making it appear that the Clarity act can continue through a new bill, however, after the midterm elections where anticrypto Democrats will outnumber procrypto Republicans, I reckon the procrypto Republicans will not be very brave to begin the fight for another cryptospace bill again heheheeh. The chance of the Clarity act was this year before the midterm elections. It has failed.

If I understood the agreement correctly, Donald Trump included loopholes in this bill for his own assets.
Do you really think Trump's $1 billion in cryptocurrency is keeping all the senators up at night?
The bill still has a chance of passing even after the election, since the Senate turnover won't happen until January 2027.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. It appears that you do not understand the situation. The window for the Clarity act to get passage has closed already. The chambers of both houses of congress has also closed and this will open again after the midterm elections with new members of both houses of congress.

The supporters of the Clarity act will need to create another bill again and this will need to go through another round of voting on the lower chamber of the house before this can go to the senate for another round of argumentation and voting.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. It appears that you do not understand the situation. The window for the Clarity act to get passage has closed already. The chambers of both houses of congress has also closed and this will open again after the midterm elections with new members of both houses of congress.

The supporters of the Clarity act will need to create another bill again and this will need to go through another round of voting on the lower chamber of the house before this can go to the senate for another round of argumentation and voting.

I’ve looked into this, it’s called a "lame-duck session."
The Senate’s composition changes on January 3rd, but the outgoing Senate will still be in session during November and December; if an agreement is reached, it could pass the Clarity Act.
Articles don't mention this, but I subscribe to a conspiracy theory that the Clarity Act will be passed during this period, when no one expects it.
However, I am also considering other market regulation possibilities from the CFTC and SEC, though their regulations might not take effect for another year.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. I like this conspiracy theory of yours hehehehe. The surprise passage of the Clarity act on December would certainly be a shock for everyone and a celebration for the bettors of yes in Polymarket heheheh. The rating is presently only on 6%! This is very cheap!

Also, according to some articles there were important bills that got passed during lame dick sessions before heheheh. I wishfully hope the Clarity act will become something similar!

[Z-tight]

Articles don't mention this, but I subscribe to a conspiracy theory that the Clarity Act will be passed during this period, when no one expects it.

I don't see any chance that the Clarity Act will be passed in the lame-duck session, especially if the Republicans lose a lot of seats in the Nov mid-term election. If that happens, the Democrats would know that the new composition of the Congress would come with more seats for them and as such more power, so they would still not give the bill the bipartisan support it requires in the lame-duck session and hold off until the new year.

I don't agree with your consipracy theory, i don't think there is any more hope for the bill this year.

[zasad@]

bbc.reporter, Z-tight
I respect your opinion, but if I were the one passing this law, I would have postponed its adoption until December.
You can make a profit of $15,600 from an investment of $1,000, it is an interesting opportunity, albeit a very risky one. This is not investment advice, but if you don't take action, the number of coins in your account won't increase

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Heheeheh if I am being honest, I would discourage everyone from betting much money on the prediction markets on the Clarity act. I reckon that $1k might be a very expensive loss for a market that has a higher chance of losing. Bet $20 only and accept this as a loss already. We can be quite certain that increasing the number of our cryptocoins will have a better chance somewhere else.