According to former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, the CLARITY Act is already “dead” in the US Congress. However, the bill remains subject to a crucial procedural vote on September 15, which prevents its failure from being definitively confirmed.
In brief
- The CLARITY Act would already be considered “dead” by several actors in Washington.
- The Senate must still vote on September 15 on a motion requiring 60 votes.
- The divisions on stablecoins, ethics and decentralized finance weaken the text.
- Republicans share community banks’ concerns, complicating vote counting.
- Cynthia Lummis fears that failure will postpone a new opportunity until 2030.
The September 15 vote remains scheduled
Renato Mariotti confirms having spoken with numerous elected officials and parliamentary collaborators during a trip to Washington, while the CLARITY Act has just lost an important enemy.
He then indicated:
The CLARITY Act is dead. Congress is entering a post-CLARITY era.
Mariotti, however, did not cite any sources. No official document or public vote count certifies the abandonment of the project either. The Senate must still vote on September 15 on a closure motion intended to limit debate.
This deadline takes into account four essential elements :
- The September 15 vote constitutes a procedural vote;
- The motion must have at least 60 votes;
- Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate;
- Its adoption would open debates, without definitively validating the law.
If all Republican senators vote in favor of the text, seven Democrats will have to join them. This scenario remains uncertain, as many Republicans have also expressed reservations regarding the project’s consequences for local banks.
Opposition still threatens the CLARITY Act
A federal framework for the crypto market is to be created by the bill. It should in particular indicate the legal status of cryptos and could distribute powers between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
However, the CLARITY Act faces numerous political obstacles. Stricter rules are being called for by Democrats against money laundering as well as strengthened ethics provisions for public authorities who hold interests in crypto companies.
The crypto activities of President Donald Trump and his family have an important place in this debate. Some elected officials want to allow state attorneys general to act when the federal government does not sufficiently enforce planned restrictions.
Another sticking point is the rewards paid on stablecoins. Indeed, banking institutions fear that these yields will trigger a flight of deposits needed to finance loans. On the contrary, crypto companies believe that a total ban would decrease competition.
Josh Hawley and Jerry Moran, two Republican senators, notably relayed the concerns of community banking institutions. The camp in favor of the text must therefore maintain the unity of its own majority, even with the support of certain Democrats.
Additionally, the protections afforded to developers of decentralized protocols remain contested. These points of disagreement justify why some observers already described the chances of adoption as low under the terms of the postponement of the vote initially planned before the summer break.
Cynthia Lummis fears a blockage until 2030
Republican Senator Cynthias Lummis, one of the main defenders of the text, thinks that the electoral calendar greatly reduces the room for maneuver. Indeed, the midterm elections on November 3 could change the composition of Congress and the priorities of the committees.
She therefore declares on the social network X: “If the CLARITY Act is not passed by this Congress, the next real opportunity to revive market structure legislation will come in 2030”.
This date does not represent a legal deadline. It constitutes a political forecast by Cynthia Lummis. Another proposal would theoretically appear before 2030, however it would certainly have to return to a round of negotiations.
Prediction markets reflect this pessimism. On September 7, Polymarket bettors estimated the probability that the project would become law before the end of this year was almost 17%. Such an assessment signals the latter’s expectations, not an official measure of support in the Senate.
Ultimately, the vote on September 15 could bring the first concrete verdict. A failure of the motion would condemn the text for this parliamentary session. However, a victory would only prolong its journey between debates, amendments, final vote and possible new validation by the House of Representatives.
Maximize your Tremplin.io experience with our ‘Read to Earn’ program! For every article you read, earn points and access exclusive rewards. Sign up now and start earning benefits.
