Congress Just Took Its Most Significant Step on Crypto in Years — And It Still Might Not Stick

Cryptocurrency has been waiting a long time for Washington to figure out what it is. The Senate Banking Committee moved that process meaningfully forward this week, and then reminded everyone exactly how far the finish line still is.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — the Clarity Act — cleared the Senate Banking Committee on May 14 with a 15-9 vote. Two Democrats, Senators Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, crossed the aisle to join all Republicans in support. The bill had been stalled for roughly four months while negotiators tried to work out disagreements that, at their core, reflect a genuine dispute about who should be in charge of a $3 trillion industry.

The legislation’s central answer to that question: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission takes primary authority over most digital assets, classified as digital commodities. The Securities and Exchange Commission retains oversight of digital securities. The bill also addresses decentralized finance regulations, consumer protections in bankruptcy, developer safe harbors, and the long-contested question of whether stablecoin issuers can pay yield — a provision that pits the cryptocurrency industry directly against traditional banks, and which was resolved in a way that satisfied crypto interests but left banking associations furious.

That’s a meaningful policy architecture. It’s also not law yet by a substantial margin.

The Senate bill now has to be reconciled with a separate version advanced by the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has its own jurisdiction over the CFTC. That combined text then needs to reach the Senate floor, where 60 votes are required to break a filibuster — meaning at least seven Democrats or independents would need to support a bill that only two Senate Democrats have backed at committee stage. After that, whatever the Senate produces has to be reconciled with the House’s own version of the Clarity Act, passed last July.

There are also unresolved tensions that didn’t disappear with the committee vote. Democrats have been pushing for ethics provisions that would restrict government officials — including the President — from profiting off digital assets while in office. That provision has been explicitly excluded from the current text because, according to White House officials, they won’t support legislation that targets the president. Senator Gillibrand has said Democrats won’t move the bill without it. That’s not a negotiating posture that resolves itself easily.

Thursday’s vote matters. It represents real momentum after months of gridlock, and bipartisan support at the committee level is a necessary ingredient for anything that eventually passes a 60-vote threshold. But the crypto industry should read the moment clearly: this was a significant step forward on a path that still has multiple high-stakes obstacles between here and a presidential signature.