ARTICLE
17 September 2026

U.S. Senate Falls Short On Procedural Vote To Advance The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
The Senate's failure to achieve the 60-vote threshold on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act leaves the timeline for comprehensive federal cryptocurrency regulation uncertain. Two key obstacles emerged: concerns over ethics provisions designed to prevent senior officials from profiting from digital ventures, and unresolved disputes over activity-based rewards and yield payments on stablecoins that banking groups warn could drain deposits from community banks.
United States Finance and Banking
Michael Dawson’s articles from Jones Day are most popular:
  • within Finance and Banking topic(s)
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services and Retail & Leisure industries
Jones Day are most popular:
  • within Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment and Tax topic(s)

On September 15, 2026, the Senate voted on a motion to proceed to consider the Clarity Act but failed to achieve the 60-vote threshold necessary to proceed to debate. It is unclear at this time when the Senate will move to reconsider the vote or if additional changes will be made to the legislation prior to a follow-up procedural vote.

The Clarity Act, a version of which passed the House of Representatives in July 2025, would establish the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for digital assets, and it would divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"). Negotiations between Senate Republicans and Democrats are expected to continue until a compromise capable of reaching the 60-vote cloture threshold is achieved.

Two issues formed the principal obstacles to advancing the legislation. First, bipartisan critics objected to modified ethics language that was intended to prevent senior government officials from profiting from digital asset ventures. Although the latest draft would require divestiture or blind trusts and give state attorneys general an enforcement role, critics argue that the enforcement mechanisms may not be sufficiently independent.

Second, the treatment of activity-based rewards and yield on payment stablecoins remained unresolved. The Clarity Act would prohibit digital asset service providers and their affiliates from paying yield solely for holding payment stablecoins or if the yield payment is economically or functionally equivalent to interest on an interest-bearing bank deposit. The act would, however, permit activity-based yield payments for stablecoin holdings based on the balance, duration, or tenure of such holdings. Banking industry groups have warned that this distinction could still allow yield-generating products to pull deposits from community banks. Conversely, digital asset companies assert that the yield compromise fosters competition and innovation while preserving overall financial stability.

The uncertainty around the passage of the legislation makes the SEC’s and CFTC’s ongoing efforts to adopt rules relating to digital assets all the more important.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More