Status clarity act

1. What the bill does: jurisdictional lines and new registration regimes

At its core the CLARITY Act draws a bright line between “investment contract” assets—kept under SEC authority—and “digital commodities,” whose spot markets would fall under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction, while establishing a new registration regime for digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers with expedited provisional paths to register ^{[2] [1]}. The Act also provides an exemption from the Securities Act of 1933’s registration requirement for certain offers of investment contracts involving digital commodities on “mature blockchains” subject to conditions and caps—such as limiting issuer sales to $75 million in a 12‑month period—which would materially change capital-raising and compliance behavior for some issuers ^{[6] [1]}.

2. How it treats secondary markets, DeFi and stablecoins

A consequential doctrinal shift in multiple analyses is that a digital asset sold in a secondary market by a non‑issuer would cease to be an “investment contract” and instead become a digital commodity, clarifying the status of many tokens after initial distribution and thereby narrowing the SEC’s reach post‑distribution ^{[7] [8]}. The Act expressly excludes certain decentralized finance activities from its registration duties—maintaining that agencies retain anti‑fraud and anti‑manipulation authority—but leaves open how tailored risk‑management and cybersecurity expectations will apply to centralized intermediaries that touch DeFi ^{[6] [4]}.

3. Who benefits and who worries: industry, banks, and watchdogs

Proponents—ranging from some House drafters to banking and crypto industry advocates—argue the law would make the U.S. a competitive hub for digital assets by permitting banks and institutional players to offer custody, trading and settlement services under clear rules and by bringing clarity that could unlock institutional demand ^{[4] [9]}. Critics, including some Democratic senators and public‑interest watchdogs cited in coverage, contend the Senate process has been rushed in places, that versions moving through Republican committees lacked bipartisan buy‑in, and that conflict‑of‑interest and other consumer‑protection provisions remain contested; watchdog groups have labeled parts of the bill as potentially self‑serving to political or industry actors ^{[5] [10]}.

4. Legislative status and political dynamics

The CLARITY Act cleared House committee stages and passed the House in July in at least one form, but its path in the Senate has been rocky—committee markups were split along party lines in some hearings, a Senate markup was postponed in January, and competing Senate drafts circulated through Banking and Agriculture committees highlight continuing procedural and political snags that could alter the bill’s final shape or delay enactment ^{[11] [5] [10]}. Separate but related crypto laws, notably the GENIUS Act for stablecoins passed earlier, are being coordinated with CLARITY’s framework, but differences between committee drafts mean the final package remains uncertain ^{[7] [12]}.

5. Practical consequences and open questions

If enacted broadly as drafted, the CLARITY Act would expand the CFTC’s supervisory reach, create provisional registration pathways, and exempt certain tokens or mature‑blockchain offerings from securities registration, which could shift compliance costs, extend commodity‑pool rules to spot markets, and encourage banks to onboard crypto services—yet the exact contours of “mature blockchains,” interplay with existing anti‑fraud powers, and how regulators will operationalize cybersecurity and DeFi exceptions are not fully resolved in the public texts and commentaries reviewed ^{[2] [1] [7]}. Reporting and legal advisories make clear this bill is intended to reduce uncertainty, but its real‑world impacts will depend on rulemaking, amendments in the Senate, and the final text sent to the President ^{[3] [7] [11]}.