Former U.S. Congressman Tim Ryan believes the CLARITY Act could still pass this year, despite a Senate vote that blocked the bill from moving forward in September. He said lawmakers may still reach an agreement if they return to negotiations and address the main concerns holding up the legislation.
The Senate voted 49–50 on September 15 against advancing a motion to begin debate on the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act. One senator did not vote. The motion needed 60 votes to pass, but the result was not a final vote on the bill itself.
Ryan, who serves on the Shyft Policy Board, said lawmakers still have a chance to reach a deal during the lame-duck session later this year, after the November elections and before the new Congress takes office.
He identified several unresolved issues, including ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and rewards offered on stablecoin holdings. Ryan said support for clearer cryptocurrency rules remains bipartisan, but lawmakers need to compromise on the details.
“I think there’s still a path,” Ryan said, adding that legitimate concerns about ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards must be addressed.
His comments followed a statement from seven Senate Democrats who voted against advancing the bill. On September 16, the lawmakers said the failed vote was not the end of their efforts and pledged to continue bipartisan discussions.
The distinction matters because senators voted on whether to begin considering the legislation, not whether to approve or reject its full contents. Further negotiations could still change provisions before another vote.
The CLARITY Act aims to establish a federal framework for digital asset markets and clarify the responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Under the proposed framework, qualifying digital commodities and their spot markets would fall primarily under CFTC oversight, while securities-related activities would remain under the SEC. The bill would also establish registration requirements for cryptocurrency exchanges and other market participants.
Ryan said clearer rules matter for companies making long-term investments in the United States. Businesses hiring workers and committing capital need regulations they can rely on, rather than uncertainty that could change with a new administration.
With the bill stalled, the SEC and CFTC have continued using their existing authority to address parts of the digital asset market. Ryan said these efforts can help businesses in the short term, but they cannot fully replace legislation that provides lasting legal certainty.
“Agency action helps, but companies making long-term investments need long-term certainty,” he said. He added that businesses need confidence that the rules will remain in place beyond the next administration.
On September 17, the SEC granted temporary, conditional relief for certain venues trading tokenized U.S.-listed stocks through permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools. The relief lasts five years after publication and requires eligible tokenized stocks to provide holders with the same rights as equivalent traditional shares.
The order also places limits on trading symbols and volume, requires trading to stop when the underlying stock is halted and invites public comment. It addresses tokenized securities that already fall under the SEC’s authority rather than settling the regulatory status of every cryptocurrency.
The CFTC’s Market Participants Division issued a separate no-action position for certain passive software providers. Under specified conditions, staff said they would not recommend enforcement for failing to register as an introducing broker, or as an associated person of one, when the software helps users trade with registered derivatives firms and markets.
That relief applies only to the activities covered by the letter and does not change the underlying registration laws.
The CFTC also submitted a proposed framework for crypto transactions and markets for White House review on September 17. The submission began a review process, and the proposal would still need to return to the commission for a vote before publication and public comment.
Ryan also addressed concerns about how regulators classify cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, XRP and Solana. He said regulators have provided more clarity on these assets, but businesses and consumers still need consistent rules that reduce uncertainty and the need for case-by-case court battles.
On March 17, the SEC issued an interpretation alongside CFTC guidance that included Bitcoin, XRP and Solana among examples of digital commodities. The assessment was based on the assets’ characteristics, terms and functions as understood by the agencies at the time.
The interpretation also clarified that a crypto asset that is not itself a security can still be involved in a transaction covered by securities laws. The SEC said its views could evolve following public feedback.
For Ryan, the broader issue is how those distinctions apply when digital assets are sold and traded. He argued that Congress should establish a clearer, more consistent framework for companies, investors and consumers.
Although the September vote was a setback, Ryan believes lawmakers still have an opportunity to revive negotiations before the end of the year. Reaching an agreement will depend on whether both parties can resolve disputes over consumer protections, ethics, illicit finance and stablecoin rewards while securing enough Senate support to advance the legislation.
