Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson says the U.S. Senate’s failure to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) confirmed his prediction.
For context, during the Senate’s September 15, 2026, procedural vote, the bill fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance. All Democrats and four Republicans voted against the measure.
Following the vote, Hoskinson briefly reiterated his earlier warning, stating, “As predicted.”
He had made the prediction days earlier during his Devs versus Builders livestream, where he argued that the cryptocurrency industry had weakened its political standing by becoming increasingly associated with celebrity-themed tokens, meme coins, and speculative activity.
As a result, Hoskinson argued that the political environment was not conducive to advancing comprehensive crypto legislation. The Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act ultimately aligned with Hoskinson’s prediction, which he said he had consistently made for more than a year.
Hoskinson Explains Why the Bill Failed
In a follow-up livestream, Hoskinson offered a broader explanation for what he believes contributed to the legislation’s failure.
His central argument was that lawmakers tried to address too many complex cryptocurrency issues through a single, wide-ranging bill without first building the bipartisan consensus needed to move it through Congress.
He contrasted that approach with his experience working with lawmakers in Wyoming, where he cited the Stem Cell Freedom Act as an example of legislation that passed both chambers without a single opposing vote. According to him, the difference was extensive consultation, negotiation, and coalition-building before the bill reached the final stage.
Crypto Regulation Requires Broader Consultation
He also criticized the limited consultation with jurisdictions that have already established cryptocurrency regulatory frameworks.
He pointed to Europe, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands and the Crown Dependencies as examples lawmakers could have studied.
In particular, he suggested examining Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation alongside frameworks developed by jurisdictions such as the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM).
From his perspective, studying these approaches could have helped lawmakers identify regulatory models that had already been tested elsewhere.
Break Crypto Regulation Into Separate Areas
Moreover, Hoskinson argued that lawmakers should have addressed cryptocurrency regulation in separate components rather than attempting to establish a comprehensive framework in one step.
Those areas could include stablecoins, digital securities, commodities, custody, taxation, and decentralized finance (DeFi). According to him, separating these issues could make it easier for lawmakers to resolve individual regulatory questions and build bipartisan agreement around each area.
Need for Clearer Asset Definitions
Hoskinson also argued that the legislation needed clearer definitions for digital securities and a more modern approach to existing securities laws.
Rather than broadly classifying crypto assets as commodities, he believes lawmakers should establish clearer distinctions between different types of digital assets and determine which regulatory framework should govern each category.
He also questioned whether the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has sufficient personnel, authority, and resources to oversee a cryptocurrency market that could eventually be worth trillions of dollars.
Bipartisan Support Remained Important
Beyond the technical regulatory questions, Hoskinson emphasized the importance of maintaining bipartisan support throughout the legislative process.
He also pointed to political and ethical concerns surrounding crypto activities involving members of the administration, arguing that such issues have become part of the broader debate and made bipartisan consensus more difficult to achieve.
Overall, Hoskinson’s explanation goes beyond the final Senate vote. In his view, the CLARITY Act failed because lawmakers attempted to tackle a broad range of complicated cryptocurrency issues without first establishing sufficient consensus, consultation, and clarity around the individual regulatory questions.
