The No Dissent section was interesting, as they seem to have stuck to a script with no meaningful discussion. And the extended funding for blockchain surveillance is telling, as the government doesn’t want you to have any financial privacy, or protect yourself from people deciphering your holdings, putting you in danger of a wrench attack. So if it’s not already a privacy cryptocurrency, you run spending amounts through a coinjoin.
https://www.therage.co/senate-republicans-unveil-new-clarity-act-draft/
The newest Clarity draft includes ethics provisions and increased law enforcement capabilities. Democrats remain unfazed.
By L0la L33tz and Pedro Solimano
This afternoon, Senate Republicans published a new draft for the Clarity Act. The Bill contains an entire new section on law enforcement capabilities, such as the increased funding of blockchain surveillance technologies, as well as the long awaited ethics clause banning acting officials from holding cryptocurrency.
As the industry celebrates another stepping stone for the bill, raising odds for its passing before August over 50% on your favorite prediction platforms, democrats reportedly continue to remain skeptical.
A House Financial Services subcommittee hearing held last Friday is emblematic of the Democrat’s interest in the administration’s pet-cryptocurrency regulation.
Officially titled “Building the Future of Finance: How the Clarity Act Unlocks Innovation,” the hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.
The hearing was held to prepare the House for a potential vote on the Clarity Act should it pass the Senate floor. Written statements from witnesses would be appended. Members had five legislative days to submit follow-up questions, due by August 21st.
And then it would sit in the Congressional archive; as a token of the echo chamber we are fed by Clarity supporters on social media, that does not seem to reflect Congressional reality.
No Dissent
Last Friday, not a single House Democrat was present during the hearing. There were few, if any, truly skeptical voices questioning whether the bill actually protects consumers.
No one asking what activity regulation actually means in practice or whether building surveillance infrastructure into crypto policy serves the public interest. No pushback on whether the bill’s definitions of control actually protect developers, or whether its PATRIOT Act expansions could represent regulatory overreach.
The largest question of all, whether the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act would hinder law enforcement, went largely unaddressed.
The hearing had a script and everyone stuck to it.
Industry representatives praised Clarity. House Republicans praised Clarity. Witnesses simply recycled talking points about “clear rules” replacing “regulation by enforcement.”
Key Sticking Points Remain Unresolved
The House of Representatives passed the Clarity Act with bipartisan support in 2025.
One year later, in May 2026, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its version 15 to 9, positioning it for a floor vote. The bill basically aims to replace what industry pundits have long-called “regulation by enforcement” with clear statutory rules.
The legislation covers payment stablecoins, cryptocurrency market structure, and developer protections. It establishes the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), intended to shield non-controlling developers from being classified as money transmitters. It also incorporates extensive Bank Secrecy Act and PATRIOT Act provisions governing anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance for digital asset services.
But key sticking points remain unresolved, even in its newest version — and many expect the bill to fall flat in the Senate. Democrats have pushed for ethics provisions barring senior government officials from owning crypto businesses, particularly targeting the Trump administration’s World Liberty Financial project – which are now included, but have reportedly not been approved by democrats; but are allegedly approved by President Trump.
Democrats also continue to believe that the Clarity Act – lovingly dubbed a pro-law enforcement bill by Senator Cynthia Lummis – would hinder the prosecution of “crypto-crime” due to its already slim protections for non-controlling developers limited solely to money transmission laws. Whether increased law enforcement capabilities in the newest draft can tame the democrats’ criticisms of the BRCA remains to be seen.
The bill requires 60 Senate votes to advance. Meanwhile, its supporters continue to talk to themselves.