The CLARITY Act has stalled after a Senate cloture motion received 50 votes to 49, falling 10 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the crypto market structure bill. Summary The 50-
The CLARITY Act has stalled after a Senate cloture motion received 50 votes to 49, falling 10 votes short of the 60 needed to begin debate on the crypto market structure bill.
SummaryThe U.S. Senate’s floor proceedings showed that the chamber failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with H.R. 3633, the House version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. Cloture required 60 votes, and clearing it would only have allowed senators to start debating the measure rather than approving it as law.
Several senators who had participated in negotiations opposed the motion. Democratic Senators Angela Alsobrooks, Ruben Gallego, and Kirsten Gillibrand voted no, while Republican Senators Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran, and Thom Tillis also withheld support.
Tillis, who had worked on disputes involving government ethics and stablecoin rewards, voted against cloture and moved to recommit. Senate Majority Leader John Thune may file another cloture motion, but any new attempt would still require support from both parties.
You might also like: CLARITY Act vote advances as Republicans reject offer
Hours before the vote, Democrats had delivered a late counteroffer addressing ethics rules and other contested provisions. The proposal followed talks involving Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s office, although its full text was not made public before senators voted.
Republicans rejected the offer and argued that their 635-page version already included 126 substantive changes requested by Democratic negotiators. As crypto.news previously reported, the party controlled 53 Senate seats and needed at least seven Democratic or independent votes even if every Republican backed cloture.
Government ethics remained the main source of disagreement after President Donald Trump accepted changes to the Republican bill. The revised text placed restrictions on crypto interests held by the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges, and certain relatives, while allowing state attorneys general to pursue some civil enforcement actions.
Democrats said the restrictions did not go far enough to address crypto ventures linked to Trump and his family. Their counterproposal sought to extend the rules to dependent children of federal officials, according to the original report.
Following the vote, Gallego accused the president of seeking “time to crime” and said he would not support legislation that enabled such conduct. His comment continued an ethics dispute that had survived months of negotiations between Republican and Democratic senators.
Other contested areas included stablecoin rewards, protections for decentralized software developers, and the treatment of event contracts that may conflict with state or tribal gambling rules. Banking groups had pushed for tighter restrictions on stablecoin rewards, arguing that such products could draw deposits away from insured institutions, while crypto companies rejected comparisons between payment stablecoins and bank accounts.
The failed motion has also stopped consideration of a revised asset-classification framework. Under the proposed legislation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would oversee qualifying digital commodities and registered spot-market intermediaries, while the Securities and Exchange Commission would retain authority over assets and transactions covered by securities laws.
One addition to the final draft would have classified XRP as a digital commodity in secondary-market transactions regardless of how many tokens Ripple held. The language sought to distinguish the status of an asset from the circumstances surrounding its original sale, but it cannot take effect unless both chambers approve identical legislation and the president signs it.
Ahead of the vote, Lacie Zhang, research analyst at Bitget Wallet, told this publication that markets had not fully priced in passage. Prediction markets still assigned a low chance to enactment, creating room for a stronger response if the Senate allowed debate to begin.
“The CLARITY Act appears to be only partially priced in,” Zhang said.
“Prediction markets still imply a relatively low probability of enactment in 2026, suggesting the market is not positioned for certain passage.”
Bitcoin had less regulatory uncertainty tied to the bill because spot exchange-traded funds already give U.S. investors access through regulated products, while its institutional trading and custody systems are more established. Zhang therefore expected BTC to benefit less than other crypto assets on a relative basis if cloture succeeded.
“Bitcoin would likely benefit the least on a relative basis because its regulatory status, ETF access and institutional infrastructure are already comparatively clear.”
Zhang identified Ethereum as the strongest potential beneficiary because the network supports stablecoins, decentralized finance, and tokenized assets while facing more unresolved regulatory questions than Bitcoin. She placed ETH first and Solana second, with Uniswap and Aave offering higher-beta exposure to provisions that would distinguish decentralized software from financial intermediaries.
XRP could also have responded strongly, Zhang said, although she believed more of its regulatory catalyst was already included in its price. Her assessment came before the Senate rejected cloture, making the projected outperformance conditional on the vote advancing.
Even a successful procedural vote would not have been enough to confirm lasting price gains, according to Zhang. She said traders would need to see ETH outperform BTC, sustained gains in UNI and AAVE, increased spot trading rather than futures-led activity, and continued strength across several sessions.
“A brief spike followed by fading prices would point to a headline trade rather than a durable repricing,” she said.
Polymarket traders cut the probability that Trump would sign the legislation in 2026 to 7% after the result, down from a high of 31% one day earlier. The drop followed the loss of the immediate procedural path needed to move the bill into Senate debate.
Before the vote, Jessica Martinez, U.S. policy director at Fireblocks, told this publication that crypto companies and financial institutions would not stop developing products if Congress failed to act. The absence of legislation, however, could determine which firms feel comfortable expanding their services.
“The good news is that the market will keep moving whether Clarity passes or not. So the question becomes which entities are prepared to move with it.”
Large institutions are already operating under existing rules, according to Martinez, while cautious banks and asset managers are waiting for standards they believe can withstand a court challenge or a change in administration. Agency decisions can offer regulatory direction, she added, but legislation would give firms rules with more staying power.
For U.S. investors and businesses, the difference affects how consistently banks, funds, custodians and trading platforms enter the digital-asset market. The SEC and CFTC may continue using their current legal powers, but future agency leaders can revise interpretations and enforcement priorities when Congress has not set a statutory framework.
“Without it, adoption continues, just more unevenly and with fewer institutions willing to move at scale,” Martinez said.
The House passed H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote in July 2025, but the Senate later developed a different version. Even if senators revive the measure and approve their text, the House must accept the changes or negotiate a common version before the legislation can reach Trump.
Read more: X launches US Cashtag Program with Coinbase and Kraken
