Lummis warned that the failure of the CLARITY Act would send the market into decline
Senator Cynthia Lummis posted a warning that if the bill is not passed in the current Congress, the next real opportunity to push for comprehensive legislation on the structure of the cryptocurrency market will not come until 2030.
9/8/20264 min read
The stalled procedure is crucial right now.
The September 15 vote was more of a formality than a substantive one. The deadlock ended the debate and allowed the Senate to proceed with a final vote on the bill. Passing the deadlock did not enact the CLARITY Act, did not resolve the ethical dispute, and did not send anything to the President's desk. It merely opened the next stage of a process that still requires a successful Senate vote, reconciliation with the House version, and a final vote in both houses.
That difference explains why prices in the forecast market diverge these two outcomes. Traders expecting the Senate to vote on September 15 are not necessarily the same traders expecting the bill to become law in 2026, and Polymarket's contract price reflects the passage of the law rather than the deadlock. The gap between a procedural victory and actual passage of the law lies there, representing the remaining 83 to 85% probability.
Internal disagreements exist.
The most significant structural development since the August recess has nothing to do with the Senate's ethics negotiations. The office of House Majority Leader Tom Emmer informed Republican members that the leadership had removed the weeks of September 21 and 28 from the voting schedule, cutting eight days of previously planned legislation. Under the revised schedule, delegates will return after Labor Day to vote for four days before leaving Washington on September 17, and the House is not expected to resume regular legislative work until after the November 3 midterm elections.
House leaders did not invoke the CLARITY Act when announcing the schedule change. However, the practical impact is direct: if the Senate passes a different version of the bill than the House version passed by 294 votes in favor and 134 against in July 2025, the amended text must be sent back to the House for a consensus vote. Since the House will be adjourned on September 17 and will not return until after the midterm elections, there is only about two days left to vote on the bill after the September 15 deadlock, assuming the Senate can complete its deliberations within that timeframe.
This shortened timeline means the realistic path for the bill to pass in 2026 requires either the Senate passing the House version without changes, which the Senate Banking Committee ruled out by a 15-9 vote in May 2026 when introducing its own text, or the House returning in its final session after the midterm elections to consider the amended bill.
Why has the ethics clause remained unresolved?
Senator Elizabeth Warren urged Democrats to vote against the bill, arguing that it prioritized industry interests over public protection and raising concerns about the impact of cryptocurrency, ethics, and investor protections. Her stance was the basis of Democratic opposition, leaving the bill still short of the 60 votes needed before the August recess.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott has publicly criticized Democratic negotiators over stalled talks and a bill that has expanded significantly beyond its original length during negotiations, a complaint reflecting the accumulation of provisions added to meet various stakeholder demands without securing the votes those provisions were intended to secure.
Unresolved disputes span three areas: ethical provisions restricting senior federal officials from engaging in personal cryptocurrency business interests, illicit financial protections, and provisions regarding interest rates and yields on stablecoins. The ethical dispute is the most publicly contentious, with the Republican version released on July 22nd and approved by Trump being immediately rejected by Democratic senators, who needed votes, arguing that enforcement by the Justice Department alone was insufficient and that the provision did not cover income from cryptocurrency assets purchased before the law took effect.
One development that benefited the bill was the withdrawal of its opposition by the National Association of Sheriffs, removing an obstacle from law enforcement that had complicated negotiations on illicit financing.
Assessment and Conclusion
There are three possible outcomes. First, the bill passes with 60 or more votes in favor, which would require resolving the ethics dispute in the days leading up to the vote, a process that has yet to materialize, and would pave the way for a vote in the House while the House's scheduling issues remain unresolved. Second, the bill fails, which wouldn't kill the bill immediately but would slow progress beyond the midterm elections and effectively confirm the near-zero probability of enactment in 2026. Or the vote is postponed again, a pattern that has become established since before the August recess.
For the cryptocurrency industry, the practical consequence of failure is the continuation of the status quo, not a new problem. Companies will continue to operate under fragmented federal and state regulations, relying on SEC and CFTC guidance, letters of no action, and case-by-case decisions instead of legal clarity. The SEC's proposed Crypto Assets Regulation, published on August 18, and CFTC Chairman Selig's statement that rules on market structure will be enacted "through rules" or "through legislation" both indicate these agencies are prepared to push for administrative frameworks if Congress fails to act, creating a regulatory outcome that could be reversed by future administrations rather than being enshrined in law.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is for informational, research, data analysis, and reference purposes only regarding the cryptocurrency market. All opinions, assessments, forecasts, or opinions reflect the author's perspective at the time of publication and do not constitute investment advice, solicitations for buying or selling, trading recommendations, advertising, marketing, or promotion of any financial products, services, or cryptocurrencies. Mentions of projects, tokens, protocols, exchanges, wallets, or cryptocurrency service providers (CASPs) are for research, analysis, or informational purposes only and should not be construed as endorsements, recommendations, or guarantees in any way. HCCVenture does not broker, advertise, market, promote, or connect users in Vietnam with any cryptocurrency services from CASPs. HCCVenture does not accept asset custody, investment mandates, manage assets, or execute transactions on behalf of clients. All investment decisions are made entirely through the reader's own research (DYOR), evaluation, and responsibility; HCCVenture is not liable for any losses or damages arising from the use of or reliance on the information presented in this article.
Compiled and analyzed by HCCVenture
Join our information channels: https://link3.to/holdcoincventure
Explore HCCVenture group
HCCVENTURE QUANT JSCO
© 2026 HCCVENTURE. ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED.
Connect with us
Popular content
Contact to us
Address: 8th Floor, Bach Dang Complex Building, 50 Bach Dang Street, Hai Chau Ward, Da Nang City, Vietnam.
Phone: 1900 1509
Gmail : sp_contact@hccventure.com
Disclaimer: The information on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice. We are not responsible for any risks or losses arising from investment decisions based on the content here.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS • CUSTOMER PROTECTION POLICY
ANALYTICAL AND NEWS CONTENT IS COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF DIGITAL FINANCE AND BLOCKCHAIN BELONGING TO HCCVENTURE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING OWNERSHIP OF THE CONTENT.
RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING ALL CONTENT AND ANALYSIS: HCCVENTURE FOUNDER - TRUONG MINH HUY
Read warnings about scams and phishing emails — REPORT A PROBLEM WITH OUR SITE.
