From the journal

US Senate Files Cloture on Digital Asset Market Clarity Act; September 15 Vote Scheduled

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, on 8 August 2026, after the Senate adjourned without a final vote. The procedural vote is scheduled for 15 September 2026. The bill, which passed the House 294-134 in July 2025, remains contested over ethics provisions, DeFi anti-money laundering requirements, and SEC-CFTC jurisdiction boundaries.

2 min read

On 8 August 2026, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act), scheduling the procedural vote for 15 September 2026. The Senate adjourned its pre-recess session without bringing the bill to a final floor vote despite bipartisan support and sustained industry lobbying.

H.R. 3633 passed the House of Representatives on 17 July 2025 by a 294-134 vote. The bill allocates digital asset jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission based on whether an asset qualifies as a commodity or a security under the bill's classification criteria. It establishes registration requirements for digital commodity exchanges, digital commodity brokers, digital asset trading systems, and decentralised commodity platforms, together with disclosure, anti-manipulation, and custody standards. Senate passage also requires agreement on ethics and conflict-of-interest provisions aimed at preventing senior executive-branch officials from holding or profiting from digital assets while in office.

Enactment would require digital commodity exchanges, digital commodity brokers, DeFi protocol operators, and stablecoin issuers to register with the relevant regulator and comply with defined operational, disclosure, and custody standards. Businesses operating under no-action relief or regulatory uncertainty would face defined compliance deadlines following signature into law. Service providers to digital asset markets, including custodians, payment processors, and transfer agents, would also face new registration or reporting obligations depending on the services provided.

The principal unresolved issues are the scope of ethics restrictions on executive-branch officials with digital asset holdings, anti-money laundering obligations for decentralised finance protocols, and the precise jurisdictional boundary between the SEC and CFTC for hybrid instruments. Galaxy Research estimates the probability of enactment before the end of 2026 at 30 percent. Polymarket traders priced the probability near 17 percent as of 10 August 2026, down from approximately 65 percent earlier in the year.

Licentium advises digital asset exchanges, token issuers, DeFi protocol operators, and trading platforms on US and multi-jurisdictional regulatory compliance. Work we undertake includes digital asset classification analysis, exchange registration and licensing, CFTC and SEC regulatory strategy, DeFi protocol compliance structuring, stablecoin issuer regulatory advisory, and legislative monitoring for digital asset markets.

Source: H.R.3633, 119th Congress (2025-2026): Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, Congress.gov

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).