Ripple Urges Senate to Treat CLARITY Act Vote as a Consumer Protection Decision
Ripple’s global co-head of public policy and government, Lauren Belive, presented the CLARITY Act as a direct test of congressional support for consumer safeguards. On July 15, 2026, she argued that opposing the legislation would preserve regulatory uncertainty that companies can exploit.
The Ripple executive stated on X:
“Voting no on the CLARITY Act isn’t being against the crypto industry – it’s anti-consumer. It’s a vote to leave crypto holders exposed to bad actors playing regulatory arbitrage.”
Belive noted the bipartisan legislation was moving closer to a full Senate vote. She framed its progress as an opportunity to establish protections for people already participating in U.S. digital asset markets. She stressed: “The bipartisan CLARITY Act is now advancing towards a vote on the Senate floor, and it is a vote for consumer protection.”
Her argument centered on the gap between established digital asset markets and the federal rules governing them. She pointed to FTX as evidence of the consequences when customer funds remain exposed without clear oversight, emphasizing:
“U.S. digital asset markets are here, but the federal rules to protect consumers have not kept up. The same regulatory gaps that let bad actors like FTX collapse and wipe out customer funds are still wide open today.”
Crypto exchange FTX collapsed and filed for bankruptcy in November 2022 following revelations about its financial relationship with sister trading firm Alameda Research and a surge in customer withdrawals. Founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) funneled billions of dollars in customer deposits to Alameda to cover its debts. A leaked balance sheet showed Alameda relied heavily on FTT, an illiquid token created by FTX, as collateral. The disclosure triggered withdrawals FTX could not meet, leading it to halt withdrawals and enter bankruptcy with an estimated $8 billion shortfall.
Would Shared SEC and CFTC Authority Close the Regulatory Gaps?
Belive said consumers face uncertainty over which protections apply, which agency is responsible for oversight, and what obligations companies must satisfy. The CLARITY Act would coordinate authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
“Today, consumers are left guessing what protections apply, which regulator is responsible, and what standards companies must meet. The CLARITY Act would fix that – giving the CFTC and SEC clear, shared jurisdiction over digital asset markets, and by requiring real regulatory oversight before tokens hit the market,” she described.
That proposed structure anchors Ripple’s case for the bill. Belive argued that responsible companies may follow appropriate standards voluntarily, but voluntary compliance cannot guarantee that every market participant follows the same rules. The executive noted:
“Good actors will always do the right thing, but consumers deserve a level playing field. That is the choice in front of Congress right now: put clear guardrails in place for everyone, or leave consumers exposed to bad actors exploiting the gaps.”
The question before senators is not whether digital asset markets should face regulation. It is whether Congress will define regulatory responsibilities and market standards or retain the existing system.
Ripple Says Rejection Would Preserve the Conditions That Failed Consumers
Belive directly challenged lawmakers who support regulation while opposing the CLARITY Act. She said rejecting a bill intended to create a federal framework would preserve a status quo that has already failed consumers.
“You can’t credibly call yourself pro-regulation and vote no on the bill built to actually create regulation. At some point, opposing CLARITY is just a vote to preserve the status quo – and the status quo is what failed consumers in the first place,” she concluded.
Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty, who also serves as president of the National Cryptocurrency Association, reinforced that warning. He argued that voting against the bill would leave existing gaps open to exploitation instead of replacing them with defined oversight. Alderoty warned:
“A vote against the CLARITY Act is a vote to leave the same unregulated conditions in place to be exploited by bad actors. We’ve seen this movie. Let’s not watch the sequel.”
