The CLARITY Act (H.R.3633) stalled in the U.S. Senate after lawmakers failed to secure the bipartisan support needed to advance the bill. Legislators and industry participants now face extended uncertainty over definitions, jurisdiction and rules for stablecoins and decentralized finance.
After the House passed the CLARITY Act 294–134 on July 17, 2025, momentum did not carry into the Senate. Democratic senators repeatedly requested additional review time, signaling deep reservations about the bill’s scope and consumer‑protection implications. As a result, the Banking and Agriculture committees postponed markups and procedural steps while negotiators seek a working bipartisan compromise.
Competing drafts inside Congress complicate that task. The House bill aims to classify some tokens as \”digital commodities\” and move oversight to the CFTC once a blockchain reaches a defined \”mature\” decentralization threshold.
A separate Senate draft, the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, proposes different definitions and could allocate significant authority to the SEC for certain ancillary assets, creating a reconciliation problem that must be solved before a Senate floor vote.
The delay follows a decisive House vote in July 2025 and reflects unresolved partisan and policy disagreements that forced Senate committees to postpone scheduled markups originally set for December 2025.
Policy fault lines shaping the impasse
Proposals to limit or regulate yield paid on stablecoin holdings have split lawmakers and sector participants; proponents argue the rules would curb risk, while opponents warn they could push yield‑bearing activity offshore or into unregulated protocols.
Those fault lines reflect a broader tension between fostering product innovation and enforcing market integrity. The CLARITY Act’s mechanism for transitioning assets from SEC to CFTC jurisdiction, tied to a blockchain’s maturity, is intended to reduce regulatory friction but has become a focal point of disagreement over definitions and implementation.
For products and compliance teams, the immediate consequence is operational uncertainty: firms cannot yet rely on a stable federal framework for custody, issuance, listing requirements or AML/KYC obligations. That uncertainty affects go‑to‑market timing, compliance budgets and legal strategy for token teams and exchanges.
Investors and compliance officers are watching whether Senate negotiators can reconcile H.R.3633 with the RFIA and when committees will reschedule markups. The timing and content of those committee sessions will determine whether federal regulators receive clearer jurisdictional rules or whether the stalemate persists, prolonging the sector’s policy uncertainty.
