CLARITY Act sets new crypto rules: Who gains, who loses

Traders Union
All News
Editors' Picks
CLARITY Act: Winners and losers under new crypto rules

What the CLARITY Act would change

The central goal of the bill is to clearly divide authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and to move away from the recent pattern of regulation through enforcement, which has created legal uncertainty.

First, the legislation introduces a formal classification of digital assets. Some tokens would be defined as digital commodities under CFTC oversight, while others would be treated as digital securities under SEC jurisdiction. This reduces the risk that the same asset could be interpreted differently depending on which regulator is involved.

Second, the bill provides a safe harbor for new projects. Startups would be able to raise up to $75 million per year without full SEC registration, provided they are working toward decentralization. The idea is to keep innovation within the United States rather than pushing it to more permissive jurisdictions.

Third, the act creates a pathway for a token that was initially issued as a security to transition into a commodity once it reaches sufficient decentralization. If the issuer no longer controls the network and it becomes self-sustaining, the asset could shift to a different regulatory regime. This is critical for large blockchain projects and could expand their access to broader trading activity.

Fourth, the legislation establishes clearer rules for intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and custodians. For major banking institutions, this would mean the ability to offer digital asset custody services with greater regulatory certainty.

Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

The CLARITY Act also supports the tokenization of traditional securities and real-world assets. It clarifies that tokenized instruments remain subject to existing securities laws. This is an important signal for infrastructure firms that are already building tokenized markets.

Miners, validators, and software developers would be exempt from broker-style reporting requirements as long as they do not engage in custodial activities. This reduces regulatory pressure on the core infrastructure of blockchain networks.

The bill also introduces tax relief for small everyday crypto payments and clarifies the tax treatment of staking. The goal is to make crypto more practical for regular transactions.

Finally, and most controversially, the provisions on stablecoins could reshape their role in the financial system. If yield on stablecoins is restricted, they would effectively be treated as digital payment instruments rather than investment products. That could tilt the balance in favor of tokenized bank deposits.

Why stablecoins became the main point of conflict

The issue of stablecoin yield has been one of the main obstacles to the bill’s progress. Banks are concerned that allowing users to earn returns on digital dollars could lead to deposit outflows and threaten traditional funding models. Crypto companies argue that without yield, stablecoins would be placed at a competitive disadvantage.

Coinbase withdrew its support for the bill earlier this year over these provisions and over the expanded role of the SEC as a primary regulator. According to company leadership, however, a compromise is now possible, suggesting that the balance of interests is still evolving.

Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

Who benefits and who does not

If the bill is passed in its current form, the primary beneficiaries would be large players with established compliance infrastructure. Centralized exchanges, custodian banks, institutional investors, and companies building tokenization platforms would gain a stable legal framework to scale their operations. The CFTC would strengthen its position in overseeing digital commodities, while the SEC could see its room to broadly classify crypto assets as securities narrowed.

Not everyone would come out ahead. Projects that operated in a gray area would need to adjust to clearer regulatory standards. Yield-bearing stablecoins could face limitations if the final compromise favors the banking sector. At the same time, if interest-bearing stablecoins are allowed, traditional banks would face a new competitor for liquidity.

In that sense, the CLARITY Act is not simply about providing clarity. It is about redistributing influence in a system where the control of U.S. crypto infrastructure is at stake. That is why the political and industry debate around it has become so intense.

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.