Two competing legislative plans in the US aim to define market structures for digital assets, but they have created a narrow path for passing cryptocurrency regulations. The House passed the Clarity Act in July, yet Senate progress remains stalled amid rival proposals. Bipartisan efforts continue, though challenges persist in achieving consensus.
In mid-July, the US House of Representatives passed the Clarity Act with a bipartisan vote of 294 to 134, signaling support for regulating digital assets. The bill would assign the Commodity Futures Trading Commission a primary role in overseeing digital commodities while preserving some authority for the Securities and Exchange Commission over crypto transactions, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Despite this momentum, the measure has not advanced in the Senate. Work continued even during the longest government shutdown on record, but President Donald Trump faces hurdles in fulfilling his pledge to position the US as the "crypto capital of the world."
Complicating matters is a competing discussion draft introduced by Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Released in late July, the draft builds on the Clarity Act and introduces a new category of "ancillary assets," defined as "intangible, commercially fungible asset, including a digital commodity, that is offered, sold, or otherwise distributed to a person in connection with the purchase and sale of a security through an arrangement that constitutes an investment contract."
Lummis described the draft as "a thoughtful, balanced approach that will provide the clarity our innovators need while providing robust consumer protections." She added, "We cannot allow regulatory confusion to continue driving American innovation overseas. Market structure legislation will establish clear distinctions between digital asset securities and commodities, modernize our regulatory framework, and position the United States as the global leader in digital asset innovation."
The Senate Banking Committee has sought stakeholder feedback through a Request for Information. In August, Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, characterized the path forward as "incredibly narrow." She outlined a two-step process: reaching a deal among negotiating parties like Wyden-Lummis-Toomey and Portman-Sinema, followed by no senatorial objections.
Smith recently told Bloomberg that prioritizing a correct framework over speed is essential, noting possible committee markups before year's end but expecting debates to extend into 2026 due to differences across committees, parties, House, and Senate. Lummis echoed optimism to Bloomberg, saying bipartisan talks are "very successful," though progressing slower than hoped.