Treasury’s Ultimatum, an Ethical Deadlock, and Wall Street Warnings
The American crypto community and financial sector are holding their breath: a massive digital asset regulation bill (the CLARITY Act) risks becoming a victim of political intrigue. The Treasury Secretary is sounding the alarm, Democrats point to ethical loopholes, and analysts warn of lost billions.
Treasury’s Ultimatum and the Spirit of Satoshi
On July 30, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made a harsh statement, demanding that the Senate immediately bring the CLARITY Act to a vote. According to him, the House of Representatives approved the document over a year ago, after which the relevant committees spent “thousands of hours” coordinating bipartisan amendments. Today, Republicans have a ready-made text, but the process is being artificially stalled.
Bessent categorically rejected criticism of the bill. He emphasized that the new rules significantly tighten requirements for crypto intermediaries, bringing them closer to classic banking standards, and reliably protect the financial system from illegal flows. Separately, the Secretary supported a provision protecting decentralized software developers from excessive registration — a position now shared even by the Fraternal Order of Police.
Concluding his speech, the head of the Treasury resorted to an unconventional argument, quoting the creator of Bitcoin:
“America will either lead, or it won’t. It’s that simple. At times like these, I always remember Satoshi, who once said: ‘If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.'”
According to Bessent, the true reason for the delay lies not in the bill’s imperfections, but in the Democratic senators’ fear of Elizabeth Warren and her “anti-crypto army.”
The Stumbling Block: Ethics and the Trump Factor
The ethics section has become the main barrier to the bill. At the center of the dispute is a potential conflict of interest involving Donald Trump and other high-ranking officials. On July 20, the White House agreed on a package of ethical standards behind closed doors with a faction of Republicans, without the participation of Democrats.
According to the final version, until January 20, 2029, the President, members of Congress, judges, and their spouses are prohibited from issuing or sponsoring crypto assets for remuneration, and any existing cryptocurrency must be sold or placed in a blind trust. The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing this.
However, Democrats deemed these measures a sham. Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Ruben Gallego stated that transferring oversight to the DOJ is ineffective, and the text itself is far from a consensus. Additional dissatisfaction was caused by the limited duration of the ban and the lack of restrictions for officials’ children.
Opposition to the bill extends beyond Congress. New York State Attorney General Letitia James warned that transferring powers to the federal CFTC would strip states of the ability to effectively investigate crypto fraud locally.
The Senate math also works against the Republicans: holding 53 seats, they need to gather 60 votes to overcome the procedural hurdle. Majority Leader John Thune has already admitted that the bill is unlikely to be passed before the recess begins on August 7.
Wall Street’s Assessment: The Cost of Delay
Analysts at JPMorgan are sounding the alarm. According to their data (based on prediction markets), the probability of the CLARITY Act passing before the end of 2026 has collapsed to 31%. The longer the process drags on, the higher the risk that the development of blockchain technologies and tokenization will completely fall under the control of traditional banks, crowding out public crypto networks.
Passing the law could open the floodgates for institutional investment and simplify market access for exchanges and market makers. And while there are already positive signals in the market (for example, Citadel Securities’ $400 million investment in Crypto.com), analysts warn: the current draft of the law could scare off major players. The reason is the exemption of some operations from SEC oversight and more lenient anti-money laundering requirements compared to the traditional financial sector.
