CLARITY Act talks resume as 7 Democrats seek revival

Seven Senate Democrats have reopened negotiations over the CLARITY Act after the chamber rejected cloture in a 49-50 vote, leaving the crypto market structure bill 11 votes short of the 60 required to begin debate.

Coinme CEO and co-founder Neil Bergquist told crypto.news that reviving the bill could reduce uncertainty over token classification, but it would not remove the state licenses that digital asset companies must secure across the United States.

The Senate rejected cloture on the motion to proceed with the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on Sep. 15. According to the official roll call, 49 senators supported the motion, and 50 opposed it, preventing the chamber from opening debate at that stage.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Angela Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Catherine Cortez Masto, Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner and Raphael Warnock voted against the motion. One day later, the seven Democrats issued a joint statement describing the result as “not the end” of their work on the legislation.

Their statement pointed to two years of negotiations and pledged to continue working on a bipartisan basis. However, Democrats and Republicans remain divided over ethics provisions, including restrictions covering elected officials and digital asset ventures.

CLARITY Act would leave state licensing intact

Although the bill would set federal rules for digital asset markets, Bergquist said its passage would not eliminate separate licensing requirements imposed by individual states.

“Since the bill focused on federal market structure, state by state licensing requirements would not have changed,” he said. “It mainly dealt with how digital assets are classified and which agency oversees them (SEC vs. CFTC).”

Under the proposed framework, federal law would divide responsibility for digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The classification of a token would help determine which agency supervises related trading and business activity.

State governments, however, could continue requiring money-transmitter licenses or other approvals from companies serving residents within their borders. Bergquist said those obligations could remain in place “either way, bill or no bill.”

For businesses operating across several states, the distinction means federal market structure legislation could answer one set of questions without creating a single national licensing system. Platforms would still have to manage both state requirements and federal rules tied to their products and listed assets.

Unclear SEC and CFTC roles affect token listings

Without a consistent federal test separating security tokens from commodity tokens, Coinme reviews potential listings through a process covering legal and operational risks, Bergquist said.

The company examines securities questions alongside factors such as cybersecurity and liquidity. Even after completing that assessment, the platform faces the possibility that regulators will later classify an asset differently.

“Without clear guidance, there is risk that our interpretation of how the regulator will classify the token is different than a future determination,” Bergquist said.

Coinme therefore relies on several sources when reviewing an asset, including previous SEC and CFTC statements and enforcement actions. Bergquist described the resulting decision as an “educated guess” because neither agency has maintained a line that gives platforms complete certainty across token categories.

Changes in presidential administrations create another layer of risk. A new president can appoint different leaders at both agencies, and incoming officials may adopt interpretations that depart from the positions of their predecessors, he said.

The concern matches comments from other industry executives after the Senate vote. An earlier expert assessment found that altcoins, token issuers, decentralized finance platforms and U.S. exchanges face more uncertainty than Bitcoin because their legal treatment depends heavily on unresolved classification rules.

Bitcoin already trades through regulated U.S. exchange-traded funds and is generally treated as a commodity. Many other assets lack the same level of certainty, leaving exchanges to decide whether listing them could bring future securities-law exposure.

Clear classifications could cut compliance costs

A federal classification framework could lower expenses by reducing the need for companies to develop their own legal analysis for every asset and jurisdiction, according to Bergquist.

“CLARITY could have both lowered costs and expanded consumer access,” he said.

At present, companies must conduct separate risk reviews to decide how a token may be treated wherever they operate. A clear division of SEC and CFTC authority could standardize part of that work, even if state licensing duties remain unchanged.

Bergquist also said passage could attract capital from established financial companies and investment funds. Banks, asset managers and other institutions often have profitable businesses to protect, making uncertain regulatory exposure harder to justify.

“Without CLARITY, navigating regulatory ambiguity isn’t worth the risk, especially for institutions with large, well-performing businesses to protect,” he said.

Institutional participation does not depend solely on Congress. Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan recently called the setback a “speed bump, not a roadblock,” citing Bitcoin’s performance and continued financial-sector product launches in a revised market outlook.

Hougan’s assessment followed a period in which Bitcoin rose from a July low of about $57,950 to more than $80,000 in early September while prediction-market odds of the bill becoming law declined. Bitwise treated the divergence as evidence against its earlier expectation that failed legislation would necessarily cause another extended period of weak crypto trading.

Seven Democrats face a tight Senate calendar

The Democratic statement reopened a possible route for talks, but no second cloture vote has been scheduled. Any new attempt would still require enough senators to assemble a 60-vote coalition.

Before the vote, Democrats submitted a counterproposal containing their preferred changes. Republicans rejected the offer, while Gillibrand had identified ethics rules as a requirement for Democratic support, including restrictions on lawmakers issuing memecoins.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis had warned before the vote that the opportunity was “now or never.” Following the defeat, she said the legislation was over for the current Congress, placing her assessment at odds with the seven Democrats seeking more negotiations.

StoneX analysts estimated that the Senate had about 14 working days available before election campaigning consumed the floor calendar. Even if senators reach an agreement, the measure would still need to pass the chamber and complete the remaining legislative process.

Bergquist expects no return before the midterm elections, with the bill’s eventual form depending on which party controls the next Congress.

“Although we first need a successful vote and the Democrats have drawn a hard line on exactly how they want to implement their crypto ethics provisions,” he said.

SEC and CFTC rulemaking continues without Congress

While the legislation remains stalled, Bergquist expects federal agencies to continue developing crypto rules under their existing authority.

“What the loss really does is shift the spotlight to the SEC and CFTC, who’ve already started writing rules without waiting on Congress,” he said.

Agency rules can provide operating guidance, but they may not offer the durability of a statute because future leadership can revise or reverse regulatory positions. Bergquist’s concerns about changing administrations also apply to any framework created solely through SEC or CFTC action.

Former CFTC Chair Chris Giancarlo has made a similar case, saying work on digital asset policy can continue under the current leadership of both agencies without new legislation. Bernstein analysts also expect the regulators to address token classification, decentralized finance infrastructure, self-custody protections and tokenized equities.

Congress has continued work on separate digital asset measures. One day after the failed cloture vote, the House Ways and Means Committee advanced a crypto tax bill by 38-5.

The Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act includes a proposed de minimis exception for certain network and transaction fees of up to $10. It also addresses digital asset lending, wash-sale treatment, staking rewards, dealer rules and reporting requirements, while leaving the Senate’s unresolved market structure questions to a separate legislative process.