As of Ryan Chan-Wei’s October 3, 2026 CoinDesk opinion column, the U.S. Senate had failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (the CLARITY Act), leaving no realistic path to revive it before year-end, in his assessment. The proposal was intended to establish rules for crypto-market oversight, but Chan-Wei says ethics concerns helped obstruct it. The official record confirms earlier House consideration; it does not, by itself, establish the Senate outcome.
What the CLARITY Act was designed to do
The House committee report describes the proposal as the “Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025” or “CLARITY Act of 2025.” It would have set out definitions under securities and commodities laws, authorized rulemaking, created provisional registration for digital-commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, and addressed offers and sales of digital commodities. These were proposed provisions, not rules that took effect.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In Chan-Wei’s account, the bill’s broader purpose was to create a market-structure framework: clarify how tokens are categorized, establish licensing expectations for trading firms, and allocate oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The proposal’s practical significance therefore depended on how lawmakers and regulators would define assets and firms, and what registration and compliance duties they would face.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe House committee report on H.R. 3633 details the proposed scope.
#1 Best Overall
What the legislative record establishes
The Congressional Record documents House consideration of H.R. 3633 in July 2025. That is evidence of House proceedings, not proof that the proposal became law, cleared the Senate, or was enacted.
Chan-Wei’s October 3, 2026 column says the Senate failed to advance the measure and that there was no realistic route to revive it before the end of that year. The official House materials cited above do not independently establish the Senate event or its procedural details, so that account should be understood as the column’s reporting and assessment.
Why the effort stalled, according to Chan-Wei
Chan-Wei identifies ethics concerns as a central obstacle. His argument is that worries about conflicts of interest and public trust complicated support for a market-structure bill, despite the case for clearer rules. The available official House materials describe the bill’s proposed regulatory provisions; they do not establish the specific Senate debate or the motives of individual senators.
The column also says senators Cynthia Lummis and Thom Tillis, whom it describes as important to the effort, were departing, and argues their exits made near-term revival less plausible. Those points are attributed to Chan-Wei rather than independently confirmed by the House records.
Why supporters argue that clear rules matter
Chan-Wei argues that regulatory uncertainty can discourage institutional investment and weaken public trust. He also presents a clearer framework as a possible support for financial inclusion and lower cross-border payment costs. These are the author’s claims about potential effects; the sources cited here do not quantify or independently demonstrate them.
The policy trade-off is not simply between regulation and no regulation. A market-structure law would need to specify which regulator oversees which assets and firms, what registration and compliance obligations apply, and how ethics and conflicts of interest are handled. Clarity could make obligations more predictable, while the design of those obligations and safeguards would remain consequential.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why Chan-Wei invokes Sisyphus
Sisyphus is a metaphor for work repeatedly pushed uphill only to slide back. Chan-Wei uses it to describe earlier efforts to establish U.S. crypto-market rules that, in his view, repeatedly faltered. He judges the Senate setback a mistake and forecasts that the next Congress will have to restart the effort. That is a prediction, not a confirmed legislative outcome.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
