What Is The CLARITY Act? The Most Comprehensive U.S. Crypto Market Structure Bill

The United States is on the verge of establishing its first comprehensive cryptocurrency regulatory framework.

The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act of 2025, a.k.a. The CLARITY Act, represents the most significant attempt to answer a question that has been on everyone's mind since Bitcoin's inception: Who's actually in charge here?

If the GENIUS Act (signed into law July 2025) was Chapter 1 of U.S. crypto regulation, covering stablecoin issuers, reserves, and redemption rules, the CLARITY Act is Chapter 2. It covers the entire crypto market structure: which assets are commodities vs. securities, which regulator oversees what, and how platforms can operate.

The bill is currently the most closely watched piece of crypto legislation in the world. Prediction markets put the odds of it becoming law in 2026 at roughly 68-72%. Whether those odds hold depends on what happens in the next four weeks.

Here's a timeline of all the key events since the bill (H.R. 3633) was introduced.

For over a decade, U.S. crypto regulation has operated in a state of productive chaos.

The SEC has treated many tokens as securities. The CFTC has argued some tokens are commodities but has had limited authority over spot (cash) markets. Meanwhile, crypto companies have operated in a legal gray zone where they're never quite sure which regulator might come knocking or what rules actually apply.

Traditional financial institutions largely stayed away because the legal risk was too high. Crypto startups incorporated overseas. And when exchanges collapsed or tokens imploded, regulators scrambled to respond with tools designed for 1930s-era securities markets.

The CLARITY Act provides coherent legal structure. It divides regulatory authority between agencies, creates clear definitions for different types of digital assets, and establishes comprehensive oversight for crypto trading platforms.

On March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC took a step in this direction by issuing a joint interpretive release clarifying how the two agencies would divide responsibilities. But that's guidance, not law. It can be reversed by a future administration without congressional action. The CLARITY Act would make these distinctions statutory.

The cornerstone of the CLARITY Act is its taxonomy. The bill puts crypto into three buckets:

1. Digital commodities
2. Investment contract assets
3. Permitted payment stablecoins

"Digital Commodities" are blockchain-based tokens with inherent utility in operating a network.

A digital commodity must be "intrinsically linked to a blockchain system," where its value stems from the network's operation rather than from someone else's entrepreneurial efforts. This explicitly excludes stablecoins, securities, and derivatives from the commodity category.

Related Article: Coin vs. Token - What's the Difference?

Think of Bitcoin or Ethereum. These assets power decentralized systems, facilitate transactions, enable governance, or reward network participants. They're functional components of blockchain infrastructure. Under the bill, these fall under CFTC jurisdiction.

Bitcoin currently represents about 56% of total crypto market capitalization. Analysts at JPMorgan have noted that a clear commodity designation under the CLARITY Act could give institutions a cleaner rationale for Bitcoin exposure, potentially concentrating institutional capital further into assets with the clearest legal status.

"Investment Contract Assets" cover tokens sold to raise capital: crypto tokens offered like traditional securities.

The bill acknowledges that many tokens start life as securities (when a project sells them to fund development) but can evolve into commodities over time.

During the initial offering phase, if you're selling tokens to finance your blockchain project, you're under SEC jurisdiction. Buyers are investing in your team's ability to build something valuable. That's a security.

But the bill creates a pathway for these tokens to transition into commodities once the network becomes sufficiently decentralized.

The criteria for this transition are specific. The network must be functional, open-source, transparently governed, and not controlled by any single entity (no one can hold more than 20% of tokens). Once certified as "mature," the token sheds its security status and moves to CFTC oversight.

Stablecoins get their own category.

A "permitted payment stablecoin" is defined as a fiat-pegged token designed for payment and settlement, denominated in a national currency, issued by an approved regulated entity, and redeemable 1:1 on demand.

Stablecoins are pushed into a banking-style prudential perimeter (issuer supervision), while their trading on exchanges still faces market integrity oversight.

Crucially, stablecoins don't fall under SEC or CFTC commodity rules. Instead, their issuers are overseen by banking regulators like the OCC or state financial authorities.

Banking regulators ensure stablecoin issuers are safe and solvent, while the SEC and CFTC retain authority to police fraud and manipulation in stablecoin trading on exchanges.

The stablecoin market now sits at approximately $319 billion. With the GENIUS Act already establishing reserve and redemption rules for issuers, the CLARITY Act adds the market structure layer: how these assets are classified, traded, and regulated on platforms.

You can better understand the impact of the bill when you understand how it splits authority between the SEC and CFTC.

The SEC retains jurisdiction over securities. Specifically, over investment contract assets during their capital-raising phase. If you're launching a token to fund your project, you're in SEC territory. You must either register your offering or qualify for an exemption, and you'll face disclosure obligations to protect investors.

Even after a token transitions to commodity status, the SEC maintains oversight in certain contexts. If a token trades on an SEC-registered platform, the SEC can still enforce against fraud or manipulation.

The agency also continues its traditional role overseeing digital asset securities and the interfaces between crypto and traditional securities markets.

Currently, the CFTC primarily oversees derivatives and its spot market powers are limited. With the CLARITY Act, the CFTC gets comprehensive authority over digital commodity spot markets.

Under the bill, the CFTC becomes the primary regulator for Bitcoin, post-ICO tokens that have become commodities, and the trading venues where they change hands.

Crypto exchanges dealing in digital commodities must register with the CFTC and comply with requirements similar to traditional commodity exchanges. Brokers and dealers facilitating these transactions also come under CFTC supervision.

The March 17, 2026 joint interpretive release by both agencies was a preview of this division. But without the CLARITY Act passing into law, that guidance remains reversible. A future administration could issue a new interpretive release and undo the entire framework without a single congressional vote.

The bill's most immediate impact hits trading platforms, which currently operate with minimal federal oversight.

Exchanges must register with the CFTC and meet core principles:

• Listing standards and due diligence
• Market surveillance for fraud detection
• Adequate financial resources
• Cybersecurity safeguards
• Risk management systems

No more listing anonymous tokens or operating without proper oversight infrastructure.

Customer protection also gets an upgrade. Platforms must segregate customer crypto from company assets and use Qualified Digital Asset Custodians, regulated entities meeting specific safeguarding standards.

The bill prevents regulators from forcing custodians to count customer crypto as their own balance sheet liabilities. This accounting treatment has stopped banks from offering crypto custody, so the clarification removes a major barrier to institutional participation.

This is the most contentious piece of the CLARITY Act and the reason the bill has been stuck in the Senate for nearly three months.

The GENIUS Act (signed into law July 2025) prohibited stablecoin issuers from paying interest on holdings. But it didn't address whether crypto exchanges and platforms could offer yield on stablecoin balances. Companies like Coinbase offered returns on stablecoin holdings that generated hundreds of millions in revenue. Coinbase's stablecoin-related revenue was $364.1 million in Q4 2025 alone, roughly 20% of total revenue.

Banks saw this as existential. Standard Chartered estimated that yield-bearing stablecoins could redirect up to $500 billion in deposits from traditional banks by 2028. Consumers were earning 4-5% on crypto wallet stablecoins compared to 0.5% in bank accounts. The American Bankers Association lobbied aggressively against any yield provision.

On March 20, 2026, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) announced a bipartisan agreement in principle. The core rule: you can earn rewards for doing things with stablecoins, but not for simply holding them.

The draft text prohibits crypto companies from paying interest, directly or indirectly, for passive stablecoin balances or anything equivalent to interest. But it allows activity-based rewards tied to payments, transactions, and loyalty programs. The SEC, CFTC, and Treasury would have twelve months after passage to define exactly what counts as permissible "activity."

This is where things got interesting.

The night before the originally scheduled January 15 markup, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly withdrew support. He called the yield restriction a provision designed to protect bank profits, not consumers.

The rest of the crypto industry did not follow. Chris Dixon at a16z posted publicly that it was time to move the bill forward. Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev called for U.S. leadership on crypto policy. Circle, Ripple, and Kraken all maintained support. White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt told Armstrong directly that he might not love every part of the CLARITY Act, but he'd hate a future Democratic version even more.

The industry fractured along commercial lines. For Coinbase, the yield ban directly hits a major revenue stream. For venture firms like a16z and Paradigm with portfolios spanning hundreds of crypto companies, the broader regulatory clarity the bill provides outweighs the yield cost.

Since then, Coinbase has rejected the draft a second time after reviewing the March 23 text. Stripe has also objected. The bank-friendly text currently stands as the baseline heading into the April markup.

Neither side is fully happy. Banks get their passive interest ban but have to accept that transactional rewards survive. Crypto firms retain some incentivization ability but lose lucrative deposit-like products.

But here's what the yield debate is drowning out: the bill codifies stablecoins as payment infrastructure. Not savings products. Not deposit alternatives. Payment rails.

That distinction matters more than the yield fight for anyone building stablecoin infrastructure for enterprises. PSPs, neobanks, payroll providers, and remittance apps don't need stablecoin savings accounts. They need regulated, programmable pipes. The CLARITY Act validates that model.

DeFi is hard because regulators are used to regulating intermediaries, and DeFi tries to remove intermediaries. If there's no company running the platform, who do you regulate?

Unlike centralized companies, DeFi protocols often operate autonomously through smart contracts. There's no CEO, no headquarters, no customer service department. Just code running on a blockchain that anyone can access.

The House version of the bill tried to accommodate this reality by exempting certain technical participants from regulation, including developers writing open-source code, validators processing transactions, and people providing user interface software (like wallet apps or websites that let you access DeFi protocols). The reasoning is that these people aren't operating financial businesses but merely providing infrastructure and tools.

This exemption is very important because, without it, someone who writes open-source code for a decentralized lending protocol could be treated as a bank. A developer creating a wallet app could be classified as a broker-dealer. This would effectively kill DeFi development in the U.S.

Naturally, there's opposition. Senate Democrats, led by Elizabeth Warren, argue these exemptions are dangerously broad. If DeFi platforms can operate without any entity being responsible for compliance, they become potential vehicles for money laundering and sanctions evasion.

The DeFi provisions remain contested in the current Senate version. 10x Research's Markus Thielen has argued that the CLARITY framework is likely to extend into front-end interfaces and token models, especially where fee generation or governance starts to resemble equity. Decentralized exchanges like Uniswap, SushiSwap, and dYdX, as well as lending protocols like Aave and Compound, could face tighter constraints around how they operate and distribute value.

Even with exemptions, anti-fraud laws still apply. Regulators can prosecute people who use DeFi for scams or illegal activity. The exemption just means you don't have to register as a financial institution simply for building decentralized software.

Also Read: What is Web3? The Ownership-Driven Decentralized Web

The CLARITY Act doesn't exist in a vacuum. Its passage depends on a political calculus that's shifting by the week.

The Trump administration has been the bill's most vocal institutional supporter. Trump signed an executive order in January 2025 directing federal agencies to take a more favorable posture toward crypto. David Sacks, appointed as the White House's AI and crypto czar, coordinated the administration's position throughout the GENIUS Act passage and the early stages of the CLARITY Act negotiations.

But Sacks confirmed on March 26, 2026 that his 130-day term has expired. Federal law limits special government employees to 130 days per year. The administration will not appoint a direct replacement.

Sacks has moved to co-chair PCAST alongside Michael Kratsios. Marc Andreessen and Fred Ehrsam, both of whom publicly backed the CLARITY Act during the January split, are now PCAST members. Brian Armstrong is not part of this advisory structure.

The White House still supports the bill. But the operational advocate who brokered compromises in closed-door sessions is no longer in a position to do so.

The Senate Banking Committee is the critical bottleneck. The markup is targeted for the second half of April, after Easter recess ends on April 13.

Key players include Senator Cynthia Lummis, who confirmed the April markup target, and Senator Bernie Moreno, who has warned that if the bill doesn't reach the full Senate floor by May, digital asset legislation may not move again before the midterm election cycle makes major legislation politically untouchable.

Remaining unresolved issues beyond stablecoin yield include DeFi provisions, ethics language (whether senior officials should be barred from personally profiting from crypto assets), and a potential attachment of community bank deregulation to the bill.

Every observer cites the same constraint: November 2026 midterms. Midterm elections historically go against the sitting president's party. If Republicans lose the Senate majority, the CLARITY Act's political dynamics change entirely.

A Senate floor vote needs to happen before August 2026, when campaigning begins in earnest. After a Banking Committee markup in late April, the bill would still need to clear the full Banking Committee, pass a full Senate vote (requiring 60 votes), go through a reconciliation process with the House version, and then reach the President's desk. That's a lot of steps in a shrinking window.

If enacted, this will become America's first comprehensive crypto regulatory framework.

• Institutional adoption grows: Clear rules allow banks to offer custody and exchanges to list digital commodities, removing a major barrier for institutional investors.
• Legal disputes are resolved: Differentiating between securities and commodities moots many ongoing regulatory battles.
• Stablecoins become payment rails: Regulations define stablecoins as infrastructure for transactions rather than passive savings products.
• Legitimacy increases: While compliance costs rise, federal oversight provides the credibility needed to attract significant capital.
• Global standards are set: By aligning with international frameworks like MiCA, the U.S. helps establish a unified global crypto regulatory standard.
• Innovation may migrate or concentrate: Heavy compliance costs might favor well-funded entities over scrappy startups. Whether this pushes innovation overseas or simply professionalizes the industry depends on final implementation.

If the CLARITY Act doesn't clear the Senate before the midterm window closes, the status quo continues. Crypto companies operate under regulatory uncertainty. The SEC retains broad discretion to argue that digital assets are securities. The CFTC's authority over spot crypto markets remains limited to anti-fraud and anti-manipulation cases.

The March 17 joint interpretive release from the SEC and CFTC provides some interim clarity, but it's guidance, not statute. A future administration can reverse it without congressional action.

The crypto lobby has signaled it would treat a failed CLARITY Act as a political liability for any elected official who blocked it. With more than $193 million on hand through Fairshake PAC to support pro-crypto candidates and oppose anti-crypto ones in the midterms, the political stakes are real.

Institutional adoption of crypto infrastructure continues to advance regardless. But without a clear statutory framework, it advances slower, more cautiously, and with higher legal costs.

The CLARITY Act is in its most critical stretch. The stablecoin yield compromise removed the single biggest obstacle, but the bill still needs to clear at least four more legislative steps before it can become law, and the calendar is not generous.

For infrastructure companies, the direction is already clear regardless of whether the bill passes this year. The legislation has codified a consensus that's been building across regulators, banks, and the crypto industry: stablecoins are payment rails. The companies building the on-ramps, off-ramps, and settlement layers for that reality are positioned on the right side of wherever the regulatory line lands.

The next four weeks will tell us whether the U.S. gets its first comprehensive crypto market structure law in 2026, or whether the industry continues building in legal ambiguity for years to come.

Also Read: Myth vs. Fact: The CLARITY Act