U.S. crypto sector presses consumer case for Clarity Act

U.S. crypto sector presses consumer case for Clarity Act
Clarity Act: Crypto's Fight

With digital asset regulation still unsettled in the U.S., the debate around the Clarity Act is increasingly centered on whether federal rules should be in place before the next market failure. The proposal is being framed by industry advocates as a consumer protection measure that would set standards for custody, disclosure, supervision and fraud prevention across crypto intermediaries.

Highlights

  • The Clarity Act would mandate digital asset intermediaries to register, meet capital standards, maintain records, and apply anti-fraud and fair-pricing rules similar to traditional markets.
  • The bill’s key provision sets custody and segregation requirements, clearer insolvency treatment, and limits on the misuse of customer property to protect retail users if platforms fail.
  • The proposal would bring Bank Secrecy Act obligations to digital asset firms, require plain-language risk disclosures, and establish a federal framework for digital asset kiosks and suspicious transaction delays.

Consumer safeguards at core of proposal

As argued in an opinion column published by CoinDesk, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger says the Clarity Act would close regulatory gaps exposed by the collapse of FTX and impose clear federal requirements on digital asset exchanges, brokers, dealers and custodians.

Mersinger writes that the bill would require intermediaries to register, maintain capital and risk-management standards, keep records, disclose material information to retail customers, monitor markets and address conflicts of interest. She also says the measure would apply conduct rules covering fraud, manipulation, marketing, supervision and fair pricing, aligning crypto platforms more closely with safeguards common in mature financial markets.

A central feature of the proposal, she argues, is the treatment of customer assets when a platform fails. The bill would set custody standards, segregation requirements, limits on the misuse of customer property and clearer insolvency treatment, aiming to answer in law questions that many FTX users confronted only after losing access to their holdings.

Mersinger also says the act would require plain-language disclosures on technology, governance, trading activity, volatility, incentives, conflicts of interest and other material risks. In addition, she points to provisions that would apply Bank Secrecy Act obligations to digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, while creating a federal framework for digital asset kiosks and allowing firms acting in good faith to temporarily slow suspicious transactions.

Industry and regulatory implications in the U.S.

Mersinger contends that failing to pass the legislation would leave existing market activity in place without stronger consumer protections or clearer regulatory visibility. Her argument is that digital assets will continue to be used by millions of Americans, making the status quo a weaker policy option than a defined federal framework.

She presents the bill not only as market structure legislation but as a broader legal architecture for assigning supervisory authority, defining company obligations to customers and setting rules for asset protection and disclosure. That framing seeks to move the debate beyond industry growth and toward operational standards, insolvency preparedness and enforcement tools.

The piece reflects continued lobbying by the crypto industry for a durable U.S. regulatory regime after years of policy debate following major market failures. While the article is opinion rather than news reporting, it underscores how backers of the Clarity Act are positioning the measure as a way to reduce risks to retail users before another crisis tests the sector.

Our earlier article covered lawmakers’ scrutiny of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), including a House Financial Services Committee hearing with Acting Director Russell Vought on the agency’s oversight model. We noted Republican proposals to place the CFPB under congressional appropriations and a broader push for greater transparency, due process, and a more risk-based enforcement approach framed around addressing demonstrable consumer harm.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.
Weekly Top Bonuses
up to $2,500
deposit bonus for all clients
CLAIM BONUS
Your capital is at risk.