White House to push Crypto's Clarity Act

[Z-tight]

I am very doubtful that this bill will scale through, 60 is a number to get when many people have a popular opinion about something. Unlike other crypto events that gears up and positivity will be so visible, this is just different.

That's because this is bigger than just any crypto event. This is a legislation in the U.S. that's about to be law, so it is bound to attract debate and controversy. The 60 votes to avoid a filibuster and further hurdles is possible if, at least a minimum of 7 Democrats vote in favor of it, and all Republicans do the same.

[zasad@]

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.

Politics
Senate crypto bill would ban federal officials — including presidents — from issuing digital assets
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/22/senate-crypto-bill-would-ban-federal-officials-from-issuing-digital-assets.html
"Republicans released an updated Clarity Act, which includes ethics provisions for federal officials and bans on crypto being used for illicit transactions.
Democrats say the Justice Department shouldn't be the regulator to enforce a ban on elected officials issuing crypto, with senators who supported an earlier version vowing to oppose the new one.
Senators could vote on the bill in the next two weeks before leaving Washington for most of August."

__
The bill's passage is slowly moving forward. It might be a sham, but I'm still watching.

[Z-tight]

The bill's passage is slowly moving forward. It might be a sham, but I'm still watching.

Really slow, the whole politics around the bill is sickening and it would continue to make the process slower. I believe the Democrats are using their necessary votes on the bill to attack Donald Trump, based on what he has profited off of crypto.

To argue that the ethics provision is still not strong enough despite recent amendments and that the DOJ shouldn't be in charge of enforcing the ban on federal officials profiting off of crypto is just crazy. To be honest, the Democrats are beginning to piss me off on this issue, and i don't think they would be acting this way if it weren't for the disclosure of Trump's crypto earnings.

[zasad@]

The bill's passage is slowly moving forward. It might be a sham, but I'm still watching.

Really slow, the whole politics around the bill is sickening and it would continue to make the process slower. I believe the Democrats are using their necessary votes on the bill to attack Donald Trump, based on what he has profited off of crypto.

To argue that the ethics provision is still not strong enough despite recent amendments and that the DOJ shouldn't be in charge of enforcing the ban on federal officials profiting off of crypto is just crazy. To be honest, the Democrats are beginning to piss me off on this issue, and i don't think they would be acting this way if it weren't for the disclosure of Trump's crypto earnings.

Don't you think this hype is already reflecting reality? Previously, large banks opposed the bill because it threatened them with massive losses and capital outflows amounting to hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars.

And now the entire debate is about how to prevent Trump from making another billion dollars on cryptocurrency. It's ridiculous

[Oluwa-btc]

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.  

I don't even think thry care too much about Donald Trumps holdings and stuff. Most of those senators are also long-term bitcoin holders and they plan to invest more if they happen to jump into retirement eventually one day. So I see every reason why they would want to see it passed successfully.

I still don't know why the passing drastically stalled though. It seems like the bankers and ceo of bankers are not happy in anyway about it because it seems like there'll be little and nothing for them if the Clarity Act is officially signed. What I do not understand is how they still intend to see a whole lot of regulations attached to it.

[zasad@]

I'd predict that wealthy individuals who keep their money in banks won't be tempted to buy cryptocurrencies even after the Clarity Act is passed. Given that several DeFi projects are hacked almost every week, large sums of capital won't be invested in cryptocurrencies and stablecoins. Therefore, I believe that the possible losses of bankers are exaggerated.

[Z-tight]

I don't even think thry care too much about Donald Trumps holdings and stuff.

The Democrats do, and that is the reason why they are very serious about the ethics provision in the Clarity Act. They don't want Trump to make more money off of the crypto market, so they want the ethics provision to be as strict and restrictive as it can possibly be. Do you know that the Democrats are kicking up a fuss about the DOJ being the sole enforcer of the ethics provision?

Most of those senators are also long-term bitcoin holders and they plan to invest more if they happen to jump into retirement eventually one day. So I see every reason why they would want to see it passed successfully.

I'm not sure how this is related, but with or without the Clarity Act, they can still buy and hold BTC when they are out of office.

I still don't know why the passing drastically stalled though.

Politics. And even more politics has slowed down the process.

It seems like the bankers and ceo of bankers are not happy in anyway about it because it seems like there'll be little and nothing for them if the Clarity Act is officially signed. What I do not understand is how they still intend to see a whole lot of regulations attached to it.

What is it that could've been in for them? Their concern is about the possibility of massive outflows from the banking industry and into crypto products

[zasad@]

Politics. And even more politics has slowed down the process.

It seems like the bankers and ceo of bankers are not happy in anyway about it because it seems like there'll be little and nothing for them if the Clarity Act is officially signed. What I do not understand is how they still intend to see a whole lot of regulations attached to it.

What is it that could've been in for them? Their concern is about the possibility of massive outflows from the banking industry and into crypto products

Read the Clarity Act's main provisions after the amendments and try to answer yourself why this law is needed now.
Bitcoin and Ethereum are digital commodities, and stablecoins are also regulated by law. If a major investor wants to buy cryptocurrency, they'll probably buy assets on the stock market because it's safer.
The most interesting thing is that Bitcoin no longer falls so sharply on bad news due to the conflict in Iran. This means that most weak hands have already sold their assets.

[safar1980]

The Senate is set to hold a crucial Sept. 15 procedural vote on the CLARITY Act, but it is not yet a final passage vote.

An XO Market contract shown on Aug. 19 prices the probability of the bill becoming law in 2026 at just 19.5%, with "No" at 80.5%.

The bill needs 60 votes to clear the upcoming cloture hurdle as fights over crypto ethics, anti-money laundering rules, and stablecoin rewards continue.

On August 8, 2026, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the CLARITY Act just before the chamber left for its summer recess, setting up the first procedural vote for Tuesday, September 15, the day after senators return.

That single sentence contains everything you need to know about why the September 15 date is both genuinely important and genuinely misunderstood. It is a cloture vote on the motion to proceed, the procedural step that merely permits the Senate to begin debating the bill, but it is not a passage vote.

[zasad@]

https://x.com/brian_armstrong/status/2090176036465955051
Brian Armstrong(C) CEO Coinbase

"Vision board:

1. Strong bipartisan vote on CLARITY Sep 15th
2. Uptober
3. Next crypto bull run begins

Just as the prophecy foretold"


https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaselig10
"If the CLARITY Act continues to drag its feet, the CFTC will exercise its existing authority to independently create a regulatory regime for the US crypto market."

[Z-tight]

"If the CLARITY Act continues to drag its feet, the CFTC will exercise its existing authority to independently create a regulatory regime for the US crypto market."

Sounds like a good contingency plan, doesn't it. Most of the community would prefer to have the Clarity Act, as it would be a federal law, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then the CFTC would build its own crypto market structure in the U.S.. I do not know if this statement would have any impact on the direction of the vote, come September 15, and we can only wait and see.

But one thing looks certain right now, and that's a market structure for crypto in the U.S., so it could either be the Clarity Act or laws established by the CFTC, using its own existing authority.

[pawel7777]

The Senate is set to hold a crucial Sept. 15 procedural vote on the CLARITY Act, but it is not yet a final passage vote.

An XO Market contract shown on Aug. 19 prices the probability of the bill becoming law in 2026 at just 19.5%, with "No" at 80.5%.

The bill needs 60 votes to clear the upcoming cloture hurdle as fights over crypto ethics, anti-money laundering rules, and stablecoin rewards continue.

On August 8, 2026, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the CLARITY Act just before the chamber left for its summer recess, setting up the first procedural vote for Tuesday, September 15, the day after senators return.

That single sentence contains everything you need to know about why the September 15 date is both genuinely important and genuinely misunderstood. It is a cloture vote on the motion to proceed, the procedural step that merely permits the Senate to begin debating the bill, but it is not a passage vote.

Thanks for sharing. I guess despite what some media outlets were claiming 2 days ago, Trump's push to get the act passed was not the primary reason for the recent price spike.
Given the hype, I thought it's more likely than not for it to get signed into law, but yeah, also on Polymarket the chances for that to happen by the end of the year are only 26%.

I wonder if this is already priced in, or will we see the price drop if it's gets voted out.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Thanks for sharing. I guess despite what some media outlets were claiming 2 days ago, Trump's push to get the act passed was not the primary reason for the recent price spike.
Given the hype, I thought it's more likely than not for it to get signed into law, but yeah, also on Polymarket the chances for that to happen by the end of the year are only 26%.

I wonder if this is already priced in, or will we see the price drop if it's gets voted out.

That’s exactly what I was thinking. The spike in price after so many dull months coincided with Trump’s meeting with representatives from the crypto world, during which he also urged the passage of the Clarity Act. It may just be a coincidence, but if that wasn’t the cause, what did cause the price to rise? Markets often don’t behave rationally, and just as we’ve seen a price increase now, we may see a decline later on. In any case, the idea that the price would rise based on the supposed future passage of the Clarity Act—with such slim odds—seems pretty ridiculous.

[zasad@]

"If the CLARITY Act continues to drag its feet, the CFTC will exercise its existing authority to independently create a regulatory regime for the US crypto market."

Sounds like a good contingency plan, doesn't it. Most of the community would prefer to have the Clarity Act, as it would be a federal law, but if the Democrats make that impossible, then the CFTC would build its own crypto market structure in the U.S.. I do not know if this statement would have any impact on the direction of the vote, come September 15, and we can only wait and see.

But one thing looks certain right now, and that's a market structure for crypto in the U.S., so it could either be the Clarity Act or laws established by the CFTC, using its own existing authority.

September 15th won't be a vote, but rather another round of consensus building on the bill. If the US wants to become the crypto capital of the world, it needs this bill. The CFTC can issue recommendations for market regulation and can revoke or amend them.
The CFTC and the SEC cannot revoke or amend federal law in the US, so federal law carries greater weight and guarantees.

[Z-tight]

but if that wasn’t the cause, what did cause the price to rise?

The rise in price was in reaction to the U.S. Treasury's announcement of doubling its buyback bond program from $2b to $4b for every session? Leading to a weaker U.S. dollar and lower yield, which allows for liquidity to flow into markets like that of BTC and gold.

The CFTC and the SEC cannot revoke or amend federal law in the US, so federal law carries greater weight and guarantees.

Yeah, like i said, most of the community would prefer the Clarity Act to be passed, that would be of more significance, but if the Democrats make it impossible, then there may be no choice but to make do with this sort of plan B.

[zasad@]

but if that wasn’t the cause, what did cause the price to rise?

The rise in price was in reaction to the U.S. Treasury's announcement of doubling its buyback bond program from $2b to $4b for every session? Leading to a weaker U.S. dollar and lower yield, which allows for liquidity to flow into markets like that of BTC and gold.

The CFTC and the SEC cannot revoke or amend federal law in the US, so federal law carries greater weight and guarantees.

Yeah, like i said, most of the community would prefer the Clarity Act to be passed, that would be of more significance, but if the Democrats make it impossible, then there may be no choice but to make do with this sort of plan B.

The CFTC and SEC proposals could become agency regulations, but these acts cannot cover certain areas of all activity in the cryptocurrency market.
Here is one proposal, but it is much smaller than the Clarity Act.
This procedure will take at least 9 months, and such delays have a negative impact on the crypto market.