White House to push Crypto's Clarity Act

[pawel7777]

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/06/29/white-house-to-speak-with-law-enforcement-groups-to-push-crypto-s-clarity-act
As per the CoinDesk article, the White House is in consultation with various law enforcement groups to discuss their objections to the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and its section, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act.
This legislation would offer some protection to crypto-software developers from being classified as "money transmitters," which is seen as crucial for developing DeFi innovations.
Some groups like the National Sheriffs Association, argue that the bill’s protections could create loopholes for mixers, tumblers, and DeFi projects, potentially enabling illicit finance.
On the other hand, crypto-industry groups are all in favour of the bill, saying it is the missing piece that fills holes in the current legislation.

There is some uncertainty about whether the bill will get enough support:

However, the bill would need 60 yes votes to ultimately pass in the Senate, meaning it'll need a significant number of Democrats to come aboard, and there are only about four weeks of Senate floor time remaining before the summer break. At the moment, the discussions continue over the BRCA, bringing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission up to full strength and an ethics provision that would ban senior government officials (such as the president) from personal interests in the crypto sector.

[Z-tight]

I wouldn't call that a 'push' anyway, except the discussion with the various groups does yield anything, if not, we're still at were we at. Though the fate of the bill rests on the Senate for now, and for it to pass, it would need 'significant' bipartisan support.

One of the sections in contention, which is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, is one of the most important aspects of this bill. Previous cases were blockchain developers have been convicted of money transmitting crimes has set a very bad precedent, which needs to be set right. It is 'easy' to find potential loopholes in any proposition, that is why it is more important to address those loopholes, than to dismiss the entire proposal.

[Zlantann]

I wouldn't call that a 'push' anyway, except the discussion with the various groups does yield anything, if not, we're still at were we at. Though the fate of the bill rests on the Senate for now, and for it to pass, it would need 'significant' bipartisan support.

One of the sections in contention, which is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, is one of the most important aspects of this bill. Previous cases were blockchain developers have been convicted of money transmitting crimes has set a very bad precedent, which needs to be set right. It is 'easy' to find potential loopholes in any proposition, that is why it is more important to address those loopholes, than to dismiss the entire proposal.

The bill might suffer setbacks due to Trump's financial disclosure, which showed the president owns about $1.4 billion in crypto assets and income. Some senators might refuse to support the bill because they assume that Trump is favouring the crypto industry because of his interest.

Anyway, the bill is a good move since it would encourage crypto-software developers to be more productive. When developers are not held responsible for how people use their products, they will be encouraged to be creative.  

[Z-tight]

The bill might suffer setbacks due to Trump's financial disclosure, which showed the president owns about $1.4 billion in crypto assets and income. Some senators might refuse to support the bill because they assume that Trump is favouring the crypto industry because of his interest.

Yeah, we all know that Trump is also looking out for his personal interest, but as long as he doesn't launch another shit memecoin and his involvement in crypto does not cause a conflict of interest while in office as president, i don't think it is a big problem. The ethics provision is the aspect of the bill that covers this 'worry' from democrats. Though i disagree that government officials should be banned from holding and trading crypto while in office, except it causes a conflict of interest.

[Zlantann]

Yeah, we all know that Trump is also looking out for his personal interest, but as long as he doesn't launch another shit memecoin and his involvement in crypto does not cause a conflict of interest while in office as president, i don't think it is a big problem. The ethics provision is the aspect of the bill that covers this 'worry' from democrats. Though i disagree that government officials should be banned from holding and trading crypto while in office, except it causes a conflict of interest.

In my home country, government officials are expected to resign from any employment or ownership of any form of business. There will always be a conflict of interest because political office holders will support policies that will affect their business interests positively. This doesn't stop them from engaging in business through family members and proxies.

But I find it unethical for the president of the United States and the first lady to float meme coins that were clearly a pump-and-dump scheme. I also think that politicians should have the right to invest while in office, but starting a project or business as president doesn't look nice.

[Z-tight]

But I find it unethical for the president of the United States and the first lady to float meme coins that were clearly a pump-and-dump scheme.

That was the first of many crazy things Trump has done since he became president for the second term, and there have been more of such crazy policies ever since. Those memecoins were shitcoins that caused financial losses for many people, and it can even be called a borderline scam, reason why it's a terrible move from a president.

I also think that politicians should have the right to invest while in office, but starting a project or business as president doesn't look nice.

I think so too. As long as they do not directly make policies in favor of projects they have invested in. However, it would also be difficult to prove intent or if actions were taking solely for personal interests.

[ArabBTC]

I wouldn't call that a 'push' anyway, except the discussion with the various groups does yield anything, if not, we're still at were we at. Though the fate of the bill rests on the Senate for now, and for it to pass, it would need 'significant' bipartisan support.

One of the sections in contention, which is the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, is one of the most important aspects of this bill. Previous cases were blockchain developers have been convicted of money transmitting crimes has set a very bad precedent, which needs to be set right. It is 'easy' to find potential loopholes in any proposition, that is why it is more important to address those loopholes, than to dismiss the entire proposal.

The bill might suffer setbacks due to Trump's financial disclosure, which showed the president owns about $1.4 billion in crypto assets and income. Some senators might refuse to support the bill because they assume that Trump is favouring the crypto industry because of his interest.

Anyway, the bill is a good move since it would encourage crypto-software developers to be more productive. When developers are not held responsible for how people use their products, they will be encouraged to be creative.  

Yea definitely the bill would have suffered some setbacks due to contrary opinions that would have arose from the senate but we can’t rule out Trump’s influence, Trump has really shown capacity in various aspects and have influenced many world decisions in recent times, so i believe that this one won’t be an issue. America is not like some countries that feel that as president you can’t do your own business or own personal assets, they are not like other countries that the leaders just sit back and depend on government money for survival, America have evolved beyond certain limits, so i have no doubt that the American government would pass this bill despite Trumps stake in crypto.

[yhiaali3]

But I find it unethical for the president of the United States and the first lady to float meme coins that were clearly a pump-and-dump scheme. I also think that politicians should have the right to invest while in office, but starting a project or business as president doesn't look nice.

Yes, this is unethical, but it might be the least unethical thing Trump has done! 😄
There have been many unethical things done by American presidents throughout history, and this is perhaps one of the simplest.

In any case, the debate over the Clarity Act has been going on for a long time, and there are many objections raised against the law before its issuance that must be resolved. Therefore, I do not expect the law to be passed in the near future.

[YOSHIE]

White House to push Crypto's Clarity Act

Regarding passing the Digital Asset Bill, as far as I know, there are pros and cons, although from what we know, the White House is actively lobbying for this law to gain legal clarity regarding the rules for the cryptocurrency industry. we all understand the goal of regulating digital assets so that they operate through valid laws.

In passing the bill, some crypto users do not want to be regulated, this will deviate from the decentralization of Bitcoin itself, there is no centralized party/third party, this is what is currently being debated, So passing the Digital Assets Bill has not been realized until now, I think the White House's push will be difficult to get the majority of votes.

[MadSl1m]

Worth being precise about what Section 604 actually protects, nobody's quoted the text yet. It shields a "non-controlling developer or provider" from money-transmitter registration, someone who publishes ledger software or provides self-custody hardware/software but can't unilaterally move a user's assets without their approval. That's exactly the bucket self-custody wallets and self-custody cards fall into, the ones where your funds sit in your own address until you spend, not on the company's books. The National Sheriffs Association objection above is about mixers and tumblers, not this case, and mixing the two up is where most of the political fight is actually happening.

[Z-tight]

In passing the bill, some crypto users do not want to be regulated, this will deviate from the decentralization of Bitcoin itself,

No, the Clarity Act has nothing to do with BTC's decentralization. This act doesn't aim to exert control over the BTC network, which isn't even possible in the first place, so such concerns are baseless. The Clarity Act is for the entire crypto market in the U.S., and the idea is to bring clarity to how crypto is regulated, so there are no conflicting laws and regulation through enforcement.

The crypto industry is already regulated in the U.S., so this proposed law is simply to bring clarity to that regulatory process, so i don't see why anyone should have a problem with that.

[zasad@]

Trump's crypto ethics stance leaves Clarity Act negotiations in limbo
https://www.theblock.co/post/408804/president-trump-agrees-some-level-ethics-language-potentially-clearing-hurdles-pass-crypto-bill
"A meeting among President Trump, White House officials, and Republican senators on ethics provisions has been kept under wraps.
On Monday morning, an industry source told The Block that Trump did not sign off on ethics language during Thursday’s meeting.
Negotiators from both parties have spent months discussing ethics provisions that would limit how presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress and other federal officials can profit from digital assets while in office."

Trump agrees to ethics provision as crypto bill inches closer to Senate vote
https://www.theblock.co/post/409000/trump-agrees-to-ethics-provision-crypto-bill
"An industry source told The Block on Monday evening that an agreement had been reached on the ethics provision after months of negotiations.
Ethics has been the final hurdle in getting broad crypto legislation passed into law.
One source familiar said that text could come as early as Monday night but could also be pushed back a bit."

[Alpha Marine]

The bill might suffer setbacks due to Trump's financial disclosure, which showed the president owns about $1.4 billion in crypto assets and income. Some senators might refuse to support the bill because they assume that Trump is favouring the crypto industry because of his interest.  

For me, I think this is the major reason the bill is being delayed.

An ethics provision that would ban senior government officials (such as the president) from personal interests in the crypto sector.

I saw an article with a headline that the Senate has agreed to the provision, but I got distracted and couldn't read the article to see what it really said.
If that can be agreed, then I believe the bill will pass. As much as the bill is a good one for the crypto sector in the country, we can't deny that Trump has his reasons for supporting the bill.

Trump agrees to ethics provision as crypto bill inches closer to Senate vote
https://www.theblock.co/post/409000/trump-agrees-to-ethics-provision-crypto-bill
"An industry source told The Block on Monday evening that an agreement had been reached on the ethics provision after months of negotiations.
Ethics has been the final hurdle in getting broad crypto legislation passed into law.
One source familiar said that text could come as early as Monday night but could also be pushed back a bit."

I saw this after making my post.
So what is left now is for democrats to see the text and verify that it is what they asked for before they can vote, right?
And from the article, the vote needs to take place in the first week of next month, so how possible is that?

[zasad@]

Trump agrees to ethics provision as crypto bill inches closer to Senate vote
https://www.theblock.co/post/409000/trump-agrees-to-ethics-provision-crypto-bill
"An industry source told The Block on Monday evening that an agreement had been reached on the ethics provision after months of negotiations.
Ethics has been the final hurdle in getting broad crypto legislation passed into law.
One source familiar said that text could come as early as Monday night but could also be pushed back a bit."

I saw this after making my post.
So what is left now is for democrats to see the text and verify that it is what they asked for before they can vote, right?
And from the article, the vote needs to take place in the first week of next month, so how possible is that?

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/22/senate-crypto-bill-would-ban-federal-officials-from-issuing-digital-assets.html
"Senators could vote on the bill in the next two weeks before leaving Washington for most of August."

__
To be fair, no official dates for the vote have been set yet, and any plans are subject to change.
Republicans don't have enough votes in the Senate, so they must negotiate with Democrats to secure the necessary number.

[noormcs5]

These days, if you want to see what could be the outcome of any geopolitical or any other act, etc, Polymarket can give you a precise hint whether it will be implemented or not. The reason is that not only retailers but also insiders bet on this platform, and more often than not, the odds suggest the outcome.

The chances for the Clarity Act to be signed into law are 37%, and this means it is less likely to be approved. Keep an eye on this, and if the odds start to increase, then maybe we may get the Clarity Act this year.

https://polymarket.com/event/clarity-act-signed-into-law-in-2026

[Z-tight]

The reason is that not only retailers but also insiders bet on this platform, and more often than not, the odds suggest the outcome.

Yeah, the odds reflect what most gamblers believe is going to be the outcome. But i don't think insiders make up a large part of that number, because how many people can be privy to such an information, or would try to take advantage of it.

The chances for the Clarity Act to be signed into law are 37%, and this means it is less likely to be approved. Keep an eye on this, and if the odds start to increase, then maybe we may get the Clarity Act this year.

The ethics provision is the major hurdle that would determine if the Clarity Act would get over the line or not. And we can expect that the odds on Polymarket would fluctuate based on the decision on it. There were reports that Trump has agreed to some parts of the ethics provision and that news caused the odds to jump on Polymarket, though nothing is concrete yet and we'd have to keep our finger's crossed.

[zasad@]

These days, if you want to see what could be the outcome of any geopolitical or any other act, etc, Polymarket can give you a precise hint whether it will be implemented or not. The reason is that not only retailers but also insiders bet on this platform, and more often than not, the odds suggest the outcome.

The chances for the Clarity Act to be signed into law are 37%, and this means it is less likely to be approved. Keep an eye on this, and if the odds start to increase, then maybe we may get the Clarity Act this year.

https://polymarket.com/event/clarity-act-signed-into-law-in-2026

Polymarket doesn't know anything new. Trump will come up with something new tomorrow and post it on his social media, and his posts could crash global markets.
Look at his policy with Iran, no one can predict how this situation will develop. If this is manipulation, the Clarity Act will be passed when no one expects it.

[noormcs5]

Polymarket doesn't know anything new. Trump will come up with something new tomorrow and post it on his social media, and his posts could crash global markets.
Look at his policy with Iran, no one can predict how this situation will develop. If this is manipulation, the Clarity Act will be passed when no one expects it.

That's a fair point as the predictions markets are only as good as the information that is priced in for today and they can't account for any random changes mainly done by the trump social media and most of the time his accounecements are to move the market up and down, as we see the opposite of his wording after some days and they bring the situation back to day 1, but in this manipulation trump and his family make an awful lot of money.

He has been doing this with tariff announcements, Iran/Israel war announcements, and deal announcements, Iran / Israel War/deals announcement and it will be followed by fake Clarity Act acceptance/rejection announcements too.

[zasad@]

Polymarket doesn't know anything new. Trump will come up with something new tomorrow and post it on his social media, and his posts could crash global markets.
Look at his policy with Iran, no one can predict how this situation will develop. If this is manipulation, the Clarity Act will be passed when no one expects it.

That's a fair point as the predictions markets are only as good as the information that is priced in for today and they can't account for any random changes mainly done by the trump social media and most of the time his accounecements are to move the market up and down, as we see the opposite of his wording after some days and they bring the situation back to day 1, but in this manipulation trump and his family make an awful lot of money.

He has been doing this with tariff announcements, Iran/Israel war announcements, and deal announcements, Iran / Israel War/deals announcement and it will be followed by fake Clarity Act acceptance/rejection announcements too.

For this very reason, I'm looking at the overall direction of movement, and I'm still confident that this law is needed in the US and will be passed.
The law may be subject to change, but all the main contentious points seem to have already been agreed upon.

The Senate will be reconstituted in January 2027, so there are still plenty of voting windows left, and my hunch is that this law will be passed during the final session in December, when no one expects it.

[Z-tight]

The law may be subject to change, but all the main contentious points seem to have already been agreed upon.

The legislation requires bipartisan support to pass the senate, so the Republican majority would have to agree to some of the points that have been raised by the Democrats, which has caused huge debate, i.e. the ethics provision and stablecoin reward. All of these would require amendment before a vote, still further slowing down the whole process. It hard to really predict when this bill will become law.