The Clarity Act stall: why crypto’s most important bill could fail and what happens next

Prediction markets give the Clarity Act a 37% chance of passing this year, Bernstein warns failure would trigger another selloff, and JPMorgan says further delays risk pushing tokenization off public blockchains entirely.

Introduction

The Clarity Act was supposed to be done by now. When the bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee in spring 2026, the expectation among lobbyists, analysts, and crypto executives was that a floor vote would follow before the summer recess. That expectation was wrong. The Senate prioritized other legislation, negotiations stalled over several unresolved provisions, and prediction markets dropped the odds of passage from above 70% to 37%.

On August 3, two of Wall Street’s most influential voices on crypto weighed in. Bernstein said failure to pass the bill would likely trigger another selloff. JPMorgan went further, warning that the longer the delay continues, the greater the risk that tokenization and blockchain applications get “absorbed by incumbent market infrastructure” instead of flowing through public crypto networks. Both banks agree the legislation matters. They disagree on how much damage a delay would cause and how quickly regulators can fill the gap.

This piece examines where the Clarity Act stands, what is blocking it, what happens if it fails, and what happens if regulators try to build the framework without Congress.

What the Clarity Act would do

The Clarity Act is the most comprehensive piece of U.S. crypto market structure legislation ever introduced. Its core function is to divide regulatory jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, answering a question that has plagued the industry since the SEC began pursuing enforcement actions against token issuers in 2017.

The bill would create clear rules for when a digital asset is a security and when it is a commodity. It would define requirements for crypto intermediaries, including exchanges, custodians, and market makers. It would provide a framework for decentralized finance and set out guidance on token issuance, self-custody, and innovation exemptions.

For institutional investors, the Clarity Act represents permission. Banks, broker-dealers, asset managers, and exchanges have repeatedly cited regulatory uncertainty as the primary reason they have not expanded into digital assets. A clear statutory framework would lower the compliance cost of entering the market and reduce the litigation risk that has kept many traditional financial firms on the sidelines.

The bill’s approach to decentralization is particularly significant. Under current SEC interpretation, virtually every token launched through a centralized team could be classified as a security. The Clarity Act would create a defined pathway for projects to demonstrate sufficient decentralization and transition from SEC oversight to CFTC jurisdiction. This transition mechanism does not exist in any current US regulation and would represent the first formal acknowledgment that digital assets can change their regulatory classification based on how their networks evolve over time.

Why the bill is stalled

The Senate Banking Committee approved the Clarity Act after resolving several early disputes, but at least four issues remain unresolved on the Senate floor. Each one represents a genuine policy disagreement, not procedural delay, which is why simple compromises have not emerged.

Ethics provisions. Negotiations have stalled over requirements for government officials who hold or trade digital assets. Some senators want stricter disclosure and conflict-of-interest rules than those in the current draft. Others argue the provisions are too broad and would discourage qualified individuals from serving in regulatory roles. The dispute has intensified as more members of Congress and their families hold crypto assets, making ethics rules a personal as well as political question.

DeFi guidance. The bill’s treatment of decentralized protocols is contentious. One faction wants to exempt truly decentralized projects from intermediary registration. Another warns that loose definitions would allow centralized projects to claim decentralization as a regulatory shield. The current draft includes language on “functional decentralization,” but there is no agreement on where the threshold sits. The stakes are high: if the definition is too narrow, it excludes most existing protocols. If it is too broad, it creates a loophole that undermines the entire regulatory framework.

Stablecoin yield rules. The Clarity Act intersects with the $GENIUS Act, which governs stablecoin issuance. Whether stablecoin issuers can offer yield to holders remains unresolved. Circle cannot offer yield directly under the current framework, while platforms like Coinbase offer yield on idle stablecoin balances. Different Senate factions want different answers, and the outcome directly affects which companies profit from the $300 billion stablecoin market.

Anti-money laundering requirements. JPMorgan cautioned that parts of the current draft impose lighter AML requirements than those faced by traditional financial firms. Some senators view this as a competitive disadvantage for banks, while crypto advocates argue that imposing identical requirements on decentralized protocols is technically impossible and would effectively ban them. The tension reflects a deeper philosophical disagreement about whether on-chain transactions should be treated like bank transactions.

The Senate did not list the Clarity Act on its Monday agenda for the week of August 3, with limited time remaining before the August recess to advance it. This omission is what prompted both Bernstein and JPMorgan to issue their warnings.

What Bernstein expects if the bill fails

Bernstein’s note on August 3, written by analysts led by Gautam Chhugani, laid out a two-phase scenario for legislative failure.

In the near term, failure to pass the Clarity Act would likely trigger a selloff across digital assets. The White House had previously signaled that negotiations were close to completion, raising expectations that have now been partially priced in. A definitive failure would remove that catalyst and likely push bitcoin below its current $63,000 range.

In the medium term, Bernstein expects the SEC and CFTC to accelerate rulemaking under Project Crypto, the Trump administration’s initiative to provide regulatory clarity through agency action instead of legislation. The broker said regulators would likely move more quickly on token classifications, DeFi guidance, self-custody rules, and innovation exemptions for token issuance, while continuing to support tokenization, crypto derivatives, and prediction markets.

Bernstein sees this administrative route as a viable but inferior substitute. Agency rules can be changed by the next administration. Legislation cannot. The Clarity Act remains “strategically important” because it would provide permanent certainty regardless of which party holds power after 2028.

Bernstein’s analysis also highlights the venture capital dimension. Crypto venture funding in the United States declined approximately 40% between 2023 and 2025, according to PitchBook data, with founders increasingly incorporating in jurisdictions that offer regulatory predictability. If the Clarity Act fails to pass before the 2028 election cycle, Bernstein estimates that the United States could lose its position as the primary domicile for crypto protocol development, a shift that would be difficult to reverse even if subsequent legislation eventually passes.

What JPMorgan sees as the deeper risk

JPMorgan’s warning, published July 30, focused on a structural risk that extends beyond price action. The bank’s analysts, led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, argued that the longer the Clarity Act is delayed, the greater the chance that tokenization migrates to traditional financial infrastructure instead of public blockchains.

This is already happening. Citadel Securities invested $400 million in Crypto.com. The CFTC approved the first U.S.-regulated perpetual crypto futures contracts. BlackRock launched tokenized money market funds. But these developments are building on traditional rails, SEC-registered products, licensed exchanges, and institutional custodians, not on permissionless protocols.

JPMorgan said the Clarity Act would have encouraged these institutions to build on public blockchains by providing a clear legal framework for doing so. Without it, the path of least resistance is to tokenize assets within existing regulatory structures, which means traditional infrastructure captures the value that public crypto networks were supposed to accrue.

The bank also noted that parts of the current draft could deter institutional participation by allowing some tokenized securities and derivatives trading outside SEC or CFTC oversight, a provision that some institutional players view as a risk rather than a benefit.

The numbers illustrate the scale of what is at stake. The tokenized real-world asset market has grown more than 200% over the past year to over $30 billion, according to rwa.xyz, and Citi projects tokenized securities could reach $5.5 trillion by 2030. If that growth happens on permissioned infrastructure controlled by banks and asset managers, public blockchain protocols like Ethereum, Solana, and Avalanche lose their most promising source of institutional transaction volume.

How the Clarity Act compares to global frameworks

The Clarity Act is not being drafted in a vacuum. The EU’s MiCA framework has been in force since mid-2025 and is already reshaping how crypto companies operate in Europe. Japan’s revised FSMA-style regime has tightened exchange requirements to the point where platforms like Bitget are exiting the market entirely. The UK is building its own comprehensive framework under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

The common thread across all three jurisdictions is licensing. MiCA requires all crypto asset service providers to hold an EU license by mid-2026. Japan requires registration with the JFSA. The UK will require FCA authorization. These are clear, enforceable requirements that give institutions confidence to enter the market.

The United States has none of this at the federal level. The SEC and CFTC have overlapping and sometimes contradictory jurisdiction. Enforcement actions have served as de facto regulation, but they apply unevenly and provide no safe harbor for compliant actors. The Clarity Act would bring the U.S. closer to the licensing frameworks that Europe and Asia have already built.

Without it, the competitive risk is that crypto companies and token issuers migrate to jurisdictions with clearer rules. This has already happened: several major stablecoin projects and exchanges have prioritized EU and Singapore licensing over U.S. registration. Every month the Clarity Act is delayed extends this regulatory arbitrage window.

The $GENIUS Act is not enough on its own

The $GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, addressed stablecoins but left the broader market structure question unanswered. It defines who can issue payment stablecoins, what reserves must back them, and what disclosures are required. But it does not classify non-stablecoin tokens as securities or commodities. It does not define requirements for decentralized exchanges. It does not create a framework for token issuance.

Fidelity, State Street, and BlackRock have all launched stablecoin reserve funds under the $GENIUS Act framework, showing that clear legislation drives institutional action quickly. But these products operate in a narrow lane. The rest of the crypto market, including DeFi protocols, layer 1 and layer 2 networks, governance tokens, and utility tokens, remains in regulatory limbo.

The enforcement gap is already visible in practice. The SEC continues to bring cases against token issuers under its existing securities framework, using the Howey test to classify tokens case by case. Without the Clarity Act’s bright-line rules for distinguishing securities from non-securities digital assets, each enforcement action becomes a de facto regulatory ruling that applies only to the specific token in question. Market participants have no way to extrapolate from one enforcement outcome to another because the SEC’s analysis depends on facts and circumstances unique to each project. This regulatory uncertainty is precisely what the Clarity Act was designed to resolve, and no stablecoin-specific legislation can substitute for it.

The stablecoin complication

If the Clarity Act fails, stablecoin regulation defaults to the $GENIUS Act, which was signed into law in July 2025 but whose implementing rules are still being written. Bernstein noted that this preserves the status quo for stablecoin issuers: Coinbase continues offering yield on idle stablecoin balances, while Circle remains unable to do so directly as an issuer.

This matters because the stablecoin market is the largest source of fees in crypto, and the regulatory framework governing it directly affects who captures those fees. Without the Clarity Act, there is no statutory mechanism to resolve the tension between stablecoin issuers, exchanges, and the new class of tokenized money market funds that are competing for the same dollar balances.

The jurisdictional overlap between the $GENIUS Act and the Clarity Act creates practical problems for compliance teams. A stablecoin issuer that also operates a lending platform would need to satisfy requirements from both bills, potentially from different regulators with conflicting interpretations. Circle, for example, has applied for a bank charter under OCC authority while also operating USDC as a payment stablecoin that would fall under $GENIUS Act oversight. If the Clarity Act assigns additional token classification requirements to assets that interact with stablecoins, Circle could face overlapping and potentially contradictory regulatory obligations from three different federal authorities simultaneously.

The political calendar

Bernstein expects crypto’s political influence to remain strong regardless of the Clarity Act’s fate. The industry spent heavily in the 2024 and 2026 election cycles, and the broker sees continued engagement ahead of the 2028 midterms. The Trump administration has been broadly supportive of crypto through executive action, and Bernstein expects that support to continue through at least the end of the current term.

The broker sees the current market downturn ending in late Q3 or early Q4 2026, driven by a combination of administrative rulemaking, continued White House support, and the crypto industry’s ability to adapt to regulatory ambiguity. The thesis is that crypto has survived without legislation for over a decade, and while the Clarity Act would accelerate institutional adoption, its absence does not kill the market.

The political dynamics are also shaped by the Senate’s composition. The Clarity Act cleared committee with bipartisan support, which means the legislation has sponsors from both parties who have invested time and political capital. Abandoning it entirely before the midterms would be difficult for senators who campaigned on crypto regulation as a priority. This creates a floor beneath the odds of passage, even if the current window closes, because the bill can return in a lame duck session or in the next Congress with the groundwork already laid.

The opposing case

The bull case for the Clarity Act’s passage is not dead. The bill cleared committee with bipartisan support. The White House has repeatedly signaled that it wants the legislation signed. Key senators have invested significant political capital in the bill, and walking away from it entirely would be difficult to justify to constituents who view crypto regulation as a priority.

Jefferies warned in June that the Clarity Act still faced significant hurdles but noted that a lame duck session after the midterms could provide an alternative window for passage. A compressed legislative timeline would likely mean a narrower bill, with contentious provisions stripped out, but it would still provide more certainty than agency rulemaking alone.

The opposing argument also draws on international experience. The United Kingdom passed its Financial Services and Markets Act framework for crypto assets in 2023 and has since attracted significant exchange and custody operations from firms that previously operated without clear regulatory status. Singapore’s licensing regime under the Payment Services Act has created a small but growing hub for institutional digital asset management. In both cases, regulatory clarity preceded industry growth rather than following it. Opponents of delaying the Clarity Act argue that the United States is watching this pattern repeat and choosing to remain on the sidelines while other jurisdictions capture market share and establish regulatory precedent that Washington will eventually need to accommodate.

What a narrower Clarity Act would look like

Even if the current draft fails to advance before the August recess, the groundwork laid in committee gives the bill a realistic path through a lame duck session. Lame duck sessions occur between the November midterm election and the January seating of the new Congress. During this window, outgoing members who are not returning face no further electoral consequences, which historically makes them more willing to vote on contested legislation. For a bill with genuine bipartisan committee support, the lame duck period is a credible alternative to floor passage before the recess.

The tradeoff is that a compressed lame duck timeline typically produces a narrower bill. When the original Clarity Act was introduced, it addressed securities classification, DeFi guidance, self-custody, token issuance, exchange requirements, and custodian rules in a single statute. A lame duck version would likely strip the most contentious provisions, DeFi guidance, stablecoin yield rules, and ethics disclosures, and pass only the SEC/CFTC jurisdiction split and basic exchange registration requirements.

This narrower version would still provide substantial value. The single largest source of regulatory uncertainty for institutional investors is whether a given digital asset is a security or a commodity. A clear statutory answer to that question, even without DeFi guidance, would allow banks and asset managers to build compliant products around specific token categories without fear of SEC enforcement. It would also give the CFTC authority to supervise crypto spot markets directly, a power it currently lacks. JPMorgan’s warning that tokenization could migrate to traditional infrastructure applies most forcefully to assets in regulatory limbo. Resolving the securities versus commodity question removes the primary reason institutional custodians cite for not building on public blockchains.

The cost is that DeFi protocols would remain in regulatory uncertainty. A narrower bill addressing centralized exchanges but leaving decentralized protocols unresolved would be a partial win for crypto markets and a meaningful loss for the portion of the industry that has generated the most innovation and drawn the most enforcement scrutiny. Protocol teams would continue operating without a safe harbor, and the competitive pressure to register in EU, Singapore, or UAE jurisdictions with clearer rules would persist.

The probability of lame duck passage depends heavily on November midterm results. If the Senate’s composition changes significantly, incoming members who were not involved in the original committee process would have less incentive to prioritize the legislation in a compressed timeline. If the current composition holds, the bipartisan coalition that cleared committee likely remains in place. Jefferies estimated in June that a lame duck bill remained possible even if the pre-recess window closed, and noted that the key metric was not just Senate floor scheduling but whether the four unresolved provisions showed any narrowing in the months before the election. Movement on any of the stall points, even partial movement, would significantly raise post-election passage odds.

What to watch

Senate calendar for August and September. If the Clarity Act appears on the floor agenda before the recess ends, odds of passage increase significantly. If it does not, the bill likely moves to a lame duck session in late 2026 or dies entirely.

Project Crypto rulemaking pace. Track SEC and CFTC proposed rules on token classifications, DeFi, and self-custody. If agencies accelerate rulemaking, the market may price in regulatory clarity without legislation.

Prediction market odds. Currently at 37%. A drop below 20% would likely trigger the selloff Bernstein described. A rise above 50% would signal renewed momentum.

Institutional announcements. Watch for banks, asset managers, and exchanges announcing plans to build on public blockchains versus traditional infrastructure. This signals which side of JPMorgan’s thesis is winning.

Bitcoin price relative to $63,000. The current price sits near the 200-week moving average. A sustained break below this level, combined with legislative failure, would confirm Bernstein’s near-term bearish scenario.

—

Frequently asked questions

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. The information presented is based on publicly available reports and data as of August 3, 2026. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.