CLARITY Act could still pass this year, former congressman says

Former Democratic congressman Tim Ryan has said the CLARITY Act could still pass this year if lawmakers resolve disputes that blocked a 49–50 Senate vote on Sep. 15. The Senate vote was a procedural step to open debate, not a final vote on the bill. Ryan said ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards remain points of dispute. He sees a possible agreement during this year’s lame-duck session. SEC and CFTC actions can help firms now, Ryan said, but legislation would offer firmer long-term rules. Tim Ryan, a former Ohio congressman and adviser to Shyft, told crypto.news that lawmakers still have a path to an agreement if they return to negotiations and make concessions. The Senate rejected cloture on a motion to proceed to the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Sep. 15, with 49 senators voting yes, 50 voting no, and one not voting. The motion needed 60 votes to advance the bill to debate; it was not a final vote on passage. Ryan identified unresolved concerns about ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards. In his view, support for clear crypto rules remains bipartisan, even though senators have yet to agree on the details. He said a deal could still be reached in the lame-duck session later this year if both sides are willing to compromise. “I think there’s still a path,” Ryan said. “The legitimate concerns around ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards need to be addressed.” CLARITY Act talks could resume after the failed vote Ryan’s assessment follows a statement from seven Senate Democrats who voted against cloture. As previously covered by crypto.news, the senators described the result as “not the end” of their work on the legislation and pledged to continue bipartisan talks. Their statement came on Sep. 16, one day after the vote. For Ryan, the distinction between a procedural defeat and a final rejection matters. Senators voted on whether to take up the measure, leaving its provisions open to further negotiation. He said the outstanding issues need answers before the bill can secure enough support to move forward. The proposed legislation would set federal rules for digital asset markets and divide responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the framework described in earlier CLARITY Act coverage, qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities-related activity would remain with the SEC. The bill would also set registration requirements for crypto trading platforms and other market participants. Ryan tied the negotiations to decisions being made by American companies. Businesses hiring workers and committing capital, he said, need rules they can rely on beyond a change in administration. He also argued that jobs and investment are at stake in the congressional debate. SEC and CFTC actions have limits, Ryan says With the bill stalled, both regulators have taken steps under their existing powers. Ryan said the agencies can make meaningful progress, but he does not believe their actions alone can provide the lasting framework businesses and consumers need. “Agency action helps, but companies making long-term investments need long-term certainty,” he said. “If you’re building a business, hiring people and investing capital, you need to know the rules are going to last beyond the next administration.” On Sep. 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional relief for certain venues trading tokenized U.S.-listed stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The order lasts five years after publication and requires eligible stock tokens to give holders the same rights as equivalent traditional shares. The SEC also placed limits on trading symbols and volume, required trading to stop when the underlying stock is halted, and sought public comment on the exemption. Its tokenized stock order concerns securities already within the SEC’s remit, rather than settling how every crypto asset should be regulated. The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued a separate no-action position that day for qualifying passive software providers. Subject to stated conditions, division staff will not recommend enforcement over a failure to register as an introducing broker, or as an associated person of one, when the software helps users trade with registered derivatives firms and markets. The CFTC developer relief applies to the activities covered by the letter; it does not change the underlying registration law. The CFTC also submitted a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets for White House review on Sep. 17. That submission begins a review process: the proposal would still need to return to the commission for a vote before publication and public comment. CFTC Chair Michael Selig had previously directed staff to examine what market rules the agency could establish using its existing authority. Bitcoin, XRP and Solana remain part of the classification debate Asked whether assets could face conflicting treatment, Ryan said uncertainty remains despite guidance from the two agencies. He pointed to Bitcoin, XRP and Solana as assets for which regulators have provided more clarity, while calling for Congress to establish consistent rules that businesses and consumers can use without resolving classification disputes through individual court cases. The SEC’s March 17 interpretation, issued with CFTC guidance, listed Bitcoin, XRP and Solana among its examples of digital commodities. The SEC based that assessment on its understanding of the assets’ characteristics, terms and functions at the time. The interpretation also said a crypto asset that is not itself a security can be involved in a transaction subject to securities law, and that the agency may refine its views after public feedback. For U.S. token holders and platforms, Ryan’s concern is how those distinctions apply when an asset is sold or traded. He said businesses and consumers should have consistent rules instead of having to litigate the treatment of assets case by case.