The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the closest thing the US crypto industry has to a comprehensive market-structure law, cleared a real institutional hurdle on May 14 when the Senate Banking Committee voted 15-9 to advance it to the full Senate floor. All 13 Republicans on the committee voted yes, joined by two Democrats, a bipartisan margin that matters in a Senate where most crypto legislation has struggled to attract Democratic support at all.
The bill itself, released as a 309-page text on May 12, two days before the vote, answers a question the crypto industry has been asking US regulators for years without a clear answer: which federal agency actually has jurisdiction over which crypto assets. Under the Clarity Act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission gets exclusive jurisdiction over spot markets in what the bill calls digital commodities, the category most fully decentralized tokens would fall into, while the Securities and Exchange Commission keeps jurisdiction over tokens that function as investment contracts. That split has been the central regulatory ambiguity hanging over the US crypto industry since at least the SEC’s enforcement-heavy years under Gary Gensler, when dozens of tokens were targeted as unregistered securities with no statutory framework clearly settling the question either way.
Beyond the jurisdictional split, the bill’s text adds several provisions crypto lobbyists have been pushing for specifically. A DeFi trading protocol framework attempts to define how decentralized exchanges and lending protocols, which don’t have a traditional corporate entity to regulate, fit into securities and commodities law at all. An insolvency safe harbor protects certain digital commodity transactions from being unwound in bankruptcy proceedings, a direct response to the messy customer-asset disputes that followed FTX’s 2022 collapse. And on stablecoins specifically, the bill threads a compromise: issuers are barred from paying interest or yield directly on idle stablecoin balances, but activity-based rewards, cashback-style incentives tied to actual usage rather than simply holding the token, remain permitted. That distinction matters because it’s the same workaround community banks have already flagged as a way for some stablecoin issuers to route yield to holders indirectly through payment partners, sidestepping the GENIUS Act’s interest ban in substance if not in letter.
The opposition is organized and specific. Banks, labor unions, and law enforcement groups have all raised concerns that different provisions of the bill would weaken consumer protections or make illicit-finance enforcement harder, arguments that mirror the broader tension in US financial regulation between innovation-friendly frameworks and enforcement capacity. More pointedly, Senate Democrats have made clear they won’t let the bill move to a full floor vote without an ethics section addressing the crypto industry ties of government officials, a not-so-subtle reference to the Trump administration’s own crypto ventures and the broader pattern of policymakers and their families holding direct financial stakes in the assets they’re now writing rules for. That ethics fight, not the underlying market-structure policy, is shaping up to be the real bottleneck standing between committee passage and an actual law.
Coinbase has been positioned as one of the loudest institutional voices pushing for the bill’s passage, and the timing of the exchange’s own leadership shakeup, chief legal officer Paul Grewal announcing his departure on July 8, just weeks after the committee vote, only underscores how much of the last several years of Coinbase’s legal strategy has been built around exactly this kind of federal market-structure clarity finally arriving.
For the Philippines, a finished Clarity Act would matter less as domestic law and more as a template. BSP and the SEC have both been building out their own jurisdictional lines this year, the SEC’s CASP framework covering exchanges and trading platforms, BSP’s VASP rules covering the underlying assets themselves, and a working example of how a major, well-lawyered jurisdiction splits commodity-style crypto assets from security-style ones is a useful reference point regardless of whether the exact CFTC-versus-SEC split translates directly. It also matters commercially: US-listed exchanges and stablecoin issuers operating under a settled Clarity Act framework will have an easier time expanding into markets like the Philippines with product confidence they currently lack, since much of what a US crypto company can legally offer international users still depends on how exposed that activity leaves the company back home. A stalled Clarity Act, stuck indefinitely on the ethics question, keeps that uncertainty alive for everyone downstream, including Filipino users of US-based platforms.
Share this article