Two Democrats voted to advance the Clarity Act out of the Senate Banking Committee alongside all of the panel’s Republicans, and several more indicated they might be willing to support the overall bill with some changes. The market structure legislation isn’t at the finish line yet, but the crypto industry can probably take a sigh of relief.
You’re reading State of Crypto, a CoinDesk newsletter looking at the intersection of cryptocurrency and government. Click here to sign up for future editions.
The narrative
The Senate Banking Committee advanced its crypto market structure bill, the Clarity Act, to the Senate floor with a bipartisan 15-9 vote on Thursday, bringing the bill a step closer to passage into law.
Why it matters
The bill passing out of committee seemed to be a foregone conclusion by Wednesday. What’s more interesting is that two Democrats — Senators Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks — voted for it, and several others signaled they might vote for it on the Senate floor with certain changes. The bill needs at least seven Democrats to vote for it, assuming all 43 Republicans vote in favor of the bill, on the floor, to go to the House.
Breaking it down
There are a few conclusions we can maybe immediately draw:
- The crypto industry’s hopes that this would get bipartisan support have so far borne out — even lawmakers who did not vote for the bill in committee suggested they might be persuaded to vote for it on the Senate floor.
- Ethics still seems like the biggest stumbling block still left, but various lawmakers at the hearing on Thursday suggested it was not a debilitating blocker.
- There are some compromises that the crypto industry at large may not love, but the overall bill has a higher chance of passage now than it did a week ago.
- The crypto industry’s investment in the 2024 election really is paying off, in two major ways: First, many of the candidates the super PACs backed really are interested in crypto, or at least in voting for crypto legislation. And second, everyone knows that the crypto industry is not afraid to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into an election, and while early 2026 efforts have stumbled a bit, that’s still a massive war chest that the industry can threaten lawmakers with.
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, otherwise known as the Clarity Act, cleared the Senate Banking Committee after a roughly 2.5 hour hearing that at times grew contentious. That some of the Democrats have concerns about the digital asset industry or at least how the administration of President Donald Trump is with it is not a surprise. What’s more telling is that senators like Mark Warner suggested that with the right additions, they would support the final product.
Two amendments that were not debated: One that Senator Elizabeth Warren described as being supported by law enforcement, and another that would have further changed how yield rewards could be treated to align more closely with what the banking industry has asked for.
All eyes now turn to the work that Senate Banking Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee members will do to merge the two different drafts of the bill.
Cody Carbone, the head of the Digital Chamber, one of the crypto trade groups, told reporters after the vote Thursday that negotiations are also continuing on the Senate Agriculture Committee side of things.
“I imagine the next three weeks on both committees are going to be insanity, and some of the Ag compromises will start to be made,” he said.
This is also where any ethics provision banning senior government officials from profiting off business ties to the crypto industry may be inserted. Senators suggested during the hearing that they were close to some form of agreement on this, but there’s no details yet. And of course, the White House will need to sign off on the agreement.
Assuming the Senate gets to a place where at least 60 members vote for the thing, we’ll have to see what happens in the House of Representatives. The fact that this bill will have to have bipartisan support in the House and that the House voted for previous version of this bill last year suggests that this bill may make it through with little issue.
But it is the House of Representatives. It’s possible lawmakers will try to attach a central bank digital currency ban, as they’ve tried to attach to every bill that’s gone through the House in recent months (including but not limited to housing legislation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and others). But that’s a ways off.
And of course, there’s also the elephant in the room: The sheer amount the crypto industry spent in 2024 and how much it’s planning to spend in 2026 to try and shape the elections. Industry participants and proponents will argue that the hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into political action committees like Fairshake are a necessary response to what they see as the regulatory overreach under the prior administration. And sure, it is one response. But it loomed over the hearing on Thursday, with the Coinbase-backed Stand With Crypto organization telling lawmakers it would “grade” them based on how they voted and the expenditures we’ve already seen from Fairshake, Fellowship and other PACs.
Punchbowl News published an interesting analysis of this aspect of the hearing on Friday, which is worth a read. The industry’s next steps and endorsements will be worth watching on this front.
This week
- No official hearings or meetings are planned as of press time.
If you’ve got thoughts or questions on what I should discuss next week or any other feedback you’d like to share, feel free to email me at nik@coindesk.com or find me on Bluesky @nikhileshde.bsky.social.
You can also join the group conversation on Telegram.
See ya’ll next week!
