Key takeaways:
- The US Senate Banking Committee voted to continue the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act by a vote of 15 to 9. This is one of the most important stages of work on comprehensive regulation of the cryptocurrency market in the United States.
- The project is intended to sort out the division of competences between the SEC and the CFTC, the two most important regulators of the American financial market. For the crypto industry, this would mean greater legal predictability.
- The bill is still not law. Further votes, negotiations with other committees, agreements with the House of Representatives and the president’s signature remain.
The U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee voted to further proceed with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, better known as the Clarity Act. According to Barron’s, the project received the support of 15 senators, with 9 votes against, which means that it will now go to the next stage of work in the Senate. This is an important moment for the US cryptocurrency market, as the bill is intended to create a broad legal framework for digital assets in the US for the first time.
The official website of the Senate Banking Committee confirms that an executive session regarding HR3633, i.e. the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, was held on May 14, 2026. In practice, it was the so-called markup, the stage at which committee members debate the project, submit amendments and vote on its further proceedings.
What is the Clarity Act about?
The SEC treats many tokens as securities. In simple terms, this means that they are subject to rules similar to shares or bonds. The CFTC, on the other hand, supervises the commodity and futures markets, including: raw materials, derivatives and some assets considered to be commodities. For the crypto industry, the difference is big because SEC regulations are usually more restrictive, and the CFTC model is considered closer to the trading market.
Reuters indicates that the Clarity Act is intended to clarify when a token is a security, when it is a commodity, and when it belongs to another asset category. The industry has been arguing for years that the lack of such rules blocks the development of companies in the US and pushes some projects to other jurisdictions.
Stablecoins, DeFi and developer protection
The project is not limited to the SEC vs. CFTC dispute. It also touches on stablecoins, decentralized finance, tokenization, customer protection, AML and the role of banks in servicing digital assets.
Stablecoins are tokens designed to maintain a stable value, most often against the dollar. They are used in cryptocurrency trading, payments and transfers between exchanges. The new version of the project includes a compromise regarding the so-called yields on stablecoins. This is about interest or rewards paid to users for holding stablecoins. According to Reuters, banks were concerned that such products could compete with bank deposits. The project is intended to prohibit passive, deposit-based interest on stablecoins, but allow rewards linked to real activity or transactions.
In the DeFi section, the project distinguishes between truly decentralized protocols and those that are still under someone’s control. This is important because DeFi, or decentralized finance, is based on applications running on the blockchain, often without a classic intermediary company between users. The official section description of the project indicates that the decentralized governance structure itself is not intended to automatically mean there is one person or group controlling the protocol. The project also excludes, among others: nodes, validators, and elements of the underlying infrastructure from being automatically treated as protocol control entities unless they have practical unilateral control.
This may be important for developers. The project provides protection for software developers and network participants who perform technical activities, e.g. compiling transactions, providing computing power or working on infrastructure. At the same time, the act does not eliminate liability for fraud, money laundering or intentional support of illegal transfers.
Why is this important for Bitcoin?
Bitcoin has been treated differently in the US than many other cryptocurrencies for years. Its status as an asset closer to a commodity than a security has already been signaled by regulators, but the market still needs broader rules for exchanges, brokers, token issuers and financial institutions.
The Clarity Act could reinforce the narrative that Bitcoin is a digital reserve asset rather than an ownership interest in a specific company. For institutional investors, funds, stock exchanges and financial service providers, however, what is most important is not the narrative itself, but predictability. Large capital rarely aggressively enters a sector where the rules can change after one regulator’s decision.
Reuters notes that the project is perceived by the industry as a step needed to further the adoption of digital assets in the US. At the same time, the bill’s fate still depends on cross-party support. It will need the votes of some Democrats to pass the full Senate.
Critics warn against too loose regulations
The project has strong support from Republicans and the cryptocurrency industry, but there are plenty of opponents. Senator Elizabeth Warren, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee, criticizes the bill as too friendly to crypto companies. Warren warned that the bill in its current form could undermine the security of consumers, investors and the financial system.
This is an important point for readers. Clear regulations do not automatically mean the absence of risk. The cryptocurrency market remains volatile, and the history of the industry shows that even large entities can fail if they mismanage liquidity, risk or customer funds. New regulations may reduce some of the problems, but they do not eliminate investment risk.
What’s next for the Clarity Act?
The passage of the bill in the Senate Banking Committee does not end the process. The bill must go through further stages in the Senate, be coordinated with the work of other committees and with the version previously adopted by the House of Representatives. Only then can the document be signed by the president.
