Clarity Act failed in Senate with 49-50 vote on Sept 15. CFTC submitted new crypto rules to White House for review, shifting focus to agency-led oversight.
🚨BULLISH: Crypto is SURGING just days after the CLARITY Act failed to clear the Senate. The total crypto market has added $330 BILLION since the bill failed last Tuesday as Bitcoin breaks above $87,000. Over $740 MILLION in shorts were liquidated in the past 24 hours, per CoinGlass. - BTC +7% - ETH +5% - XRP +8% - SOL +7% The GENIUS Act failed a similar vote in May 2025 and passed two months later.
Bitgo @BitGo complaining their bags are net being shillled to 401k plans, what else is new eh 'This is #BitGo's Weekly Research Report, the data and analysis behind the moves that matter in crypto. In this edition, Greg Cipolaro, BitGo's new Head of Research, takes on the Senate's failed cloture vote on the CLARITY Act. Greg breaks down why the coalition was short even in the best case, what's still in place without a statute (the SEC-CFTC joint interpretation, GENIUS, stablecoin yield rules), and why bitcoin's muted reaction looks less like a shrug than a fifteen-year regulatory head start. CLARITY: The Day After Tomorrow Greg Cipolaro, Head of Research The Senate's CLARITY Act vote failed 49–50 last Tuesday, short of the 60 votes needed for cloture. The math for passing the act was structurally short even in the best case. If every Democratic negotiator voted yes, CLARITY would have only gotten to 57 votes. Ethics enforcement and stablecoin yield rules were the sticking points, and neither moved enough between drafts to close the gap. Without CLARITY, industry regulation rests on a March SEC-CFTC joint interpretation classifying 16 assets as digital commodities—an agency interpretation, not a statute, that a court or future commission could unwind. Stablecoin yield is likely getting phased out anyway, via OCC/FDIC rules closing the affiliate loophole, regardless of the bill's fate. Bitcoin fell ~2.9% on the news, less than ether, XRP, or Solana—a sign the market treats bitcoin's regulatory standing (CFTC commodity status since 2015, spot ETFs) as largely settled, unlike altcoins and intermediaries still waiting on statute. The bill isn't formally dead—a lame-duck revival is possible—but the November election makes a comeback harder either way the House or Senate breaks. For BitGo: Our December 2025 OCC national trust bank charter already delivers much of what CLARITY's custody provisions would have provided by statute.
Tuesday the Senate voted 49 to 50 on the rules for the companies that hold people's coins. The bill stalled. By Thursday the CFTC had reportedly sent its own rulebook to the White House for review. In Washington a no vote doesn't stop the rules. It changes who writes them. Bitcoin's rules were published in 2008 and have never needed a vote, a chairman or a review. You can read them tonight.
I clearly see FOMO from those who were sidelined and the Clarity Act trapping the bears. If I weren’t on X, I wouldn’t even have known about the Clarity Act, since my decisions are almost entirely based on TA.
The thing that really stands out about this front-page WSJ story by @KevinTDugan is the way it acts like Congress was doing the digital asset industry a favor by even considering passing Clarity. Crypto is not a volleyball team. It's not a Jeopardy contestant. It's a specific application of mathematics, a technology, and when combined with other technologies, a new way of interacting. What does it mean for a technology and a tool to "choke"? Even the title "Crypto Blew Its Big Moment" sounds like poorly prompted AI slop. Why was this the big moment? And since Armstrong's opposition to the yield provision (on a bill that wasn't even meant to cover stablecoins) is the central story of this article, why is the onus on the industry to prove competition with banks is good—no other disruptive industry has to constantly do that. What's the actual story there? What facts or data can be presented beyond unverifiable quotes from staffers who work for politicians who must spin every outcome? As usual, what the article doesn't do is grapple with what cryptocurrencies and blockchains actually do, or why they might be useful, or how regulations augment adoption. That would require intellectual curiosity, the ability to think outside of a boring bubble, and hard reporting. It would require not doing Jamie Dimon's dirty work. And we should't be surprised, because the author's bio says "Writing about the culture of Wall Street." And if you read the comments, there is 100% consensus that crypto is a scam, a buffoon's assumption this article does nothing to challenge. It's yet another predictable wink to the peanut gallery, by people who are smart enough to seek a greater truth, but choose not to. All of which is to say, another missed opportunity to do real reporting to inform the public of the much more complicated, but also much more interesting, story of what is actually happening.
SEVEN REPUBLICANS COSPONSORED AMENDMENT GIVING BANKS MAJOR WIN ON STABLECOIN YIELD, COMPLICATING CLARITY ACT 60 VOTE MATH, ACCORDING TO AN AMENDMENT QUIETLY FILED ON THE CLARITY ACT LAST WEEK: PUNCHBOWL $WIN #WIN
Strategic Bitcoin Reserve just cleared committee. 🇺🇸 House Financial Services advanced the bill 28–21. Mandatory 20-year hold on government Bitcoin. Custody at Treasury. Still needs full House, Senate, and the President. That's lasting US commitment — less long-term supply overhang fear.
US crypto clarity legislation just failed in the Senate. Again. While lawmakers argue, decentralized networks keep running, no permission needed. That's the whole point. #Cardano
With the CLARITY Act failing to pass, industry leaders like Saylor, Hasseeb, and others say that we should focus on mass adoption because the widespread use of crypto could provide a safeguard against future changes in regulatory policy. I agree. Uber kept operating and growing after getting a cease-and-desist order in 2010. Airbnb grew while cities argued that a huge percentage of its listings were illegal. Bird dropped fleets of scooters into cities before getting permits or business licenses. None of them waited for perfect rules. They got enough users that regulators eventually had to respond favorably. So I understand the argument that crypto companies should stop waiting for Congress and build products under existing rules. Yes, I understand that financial products are very different than rides, home rentals, and scooters. But we've been building for nearly 2 decades under regulatory uncertainty, and we shouldn't continue to let it prevent adoption. Build on.
