Updated Jul 30, 2026, 3:22 p.m. Published Jul 30, 2026, 3:00 p.m.
You’re reading Crypto for Advisors, CoinDesk’s weekly newsletter that unpacks digital assets for financial advisors. Subscribe here to get it every Thursday.
Happy Thursday, advisors!
In today’s newsletter, Aaron Brogan analyzes why the Clarity Act may be falling short of industry needs.
Then, in “Ask an Expert,” Trevor Overko weighs in on the bill’s potential implementation.
Happy reading.
Yay or nay to clarity
As you might have seen, the heavily contested “ethics” portion of the pending Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has had a bit of a bumpy ride. The language, that would prohibit certain federal officials, including the President, from issuing cryptocurrency tokens while in office, has long been a cornerstone of the Democratic crypto agenda.
This is a tricky issue for Republicans because in order for the crypto bill to become a law, President Trump has to sign it, and historically he has liked issuing cryptocurrency tokens. Nonetheless, they reached an agreement on proposed language and sent it to their colleagues across the aisle. Unfortunately, this was not well received, with Sen. Ruben Gallego noting “Whatever piece of s**t they sent back to us, that was not a serious effort.”
This comes as Senate Majority Leader John Thune threw in the towel and told reporters that the bill was not going to pass before September. And if you are a reader of tea leaves, that means it is dead. Congress tends to spend the autumn months of election years campaigning to keep their jobs and if Democrats win either house, as they are expected to, there will be no bill before 2029. Anything can happen, but things are not looking good for the plucky bill that couldn’t.
That may be good though after all, because much of the industry organizing to support the bill obscured the fact that it is a heap. The basic problem with Clarity is that it is meant to enable a design paradigm that doesn’t exist anymore. Now that it has finally stopped mooing, we can admit it.
Clarity would have functioned by creating a complex matryoshka of overlapping categories. It creates three nested categories. A “digital commodity” is expected to mean a fungible blockchain-based asset capable of exclusive possession and peer-to-peer transfer. A “network token” is a digital commodity intrinsically linked to a distributed-ledger system and deriving, or reasonably expected to derive, value from its use. An “ancillary asset” is a network token whose value depends on the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of an originator or related person.
Primary sales of a network token that is not an ancillary asset generally are not securities transactions, absent disqualifying financial rights. Sales involving an ancillary asset, however, may be treated as investment-contract transactions and must satisfy the ancillary-asset disclosure regime or another registration exemption. Regulation Crypto provides a bespoke exemption subject to offering limits, disclosures and other conditions.
The problem is that Clarity’s core bargain is unattractive. A network token can escape the ancillary-asset regime only if developers relinquish coordinated control, perform no more than nominal managerial work and cease being a primary source of the token’s value, an impractical endpoint. Developers who retain control must instead provide extensive initial and semiannual disclosures under Regulation Crypto, recreating much of the burden that made Regulation A unattractive to crypto issuers.
Nor does the Clarity Act address the tax incentive to issue offshore since Regulation Crypto is limited to U.S.-organized originators and provides no special federal tax treatment for token sales. This means that the vast majority of projects that use the Cayman Islands or similar jurisdictions for token issuance tax strategy may find the new pathway commercially unusable. It’s not obvious to me that any serious venture would ever use the mechanism.
Ask an Expert
Q. The Clarity Act, yea or nay?
Yea, with one important caveat. The objective cannot simply be to make life easier for crypto companies. It should make legitimate projects easier to identify, while making fraud and regulatory arbitrage harder. The biggest problem in the U.S. has been that companies often cannot determine whether they are dealing with the SEC, the CFTC or both until an enforcement action happens.
That is not a serious regulatory system. It pushes responsible teams offshore while doing surprisingly little to stop bad actors. The Clarity Act is directionally right because it recognizes that a capital-raising transaction can involve securities laws without automatically making the underlying token a security.
That distinction is much closer to how decentralized networks actually develop. My main concern is implementation. If the definitions remain subjective, or the SEC and CFTC apply conflicting standards, the uncertainty simply moves from the courts into the rulemaking process. The bill should pass, but success will depend on clear rules, coordinated regulators and real enforcement against fraud.
Q. What aspect will benefit investors the most?
The greatest benefit is the combination of clearer asset classification and mandatory disclosure. Investors need to know what they are buying, which regulator has jurisdiction, what information the project must disclose and what legal protections exist if something goes wrong. The current system often gives investors the worst of both worlds. Many projects do not provide disclosures comparable to public companies, yet they also lack a practical regulatory framework tailored to decentralized networks.
Meanwhile, legitimate businesses spend years and millions of dollars debating whether their token is a security, a commodity or something else. The Clarity Act moves toward a more useful distinction between the fundraising transaction and the underlying network asset. It also introduces disclosure requirements, restrictions on insider sales, registration standards for intermediaries and protections around customer assets.
None of that removes the underlying risk of crypto. Tokens will still fail, markets will remain volatile and investors will still make bad decisions. What it does is make those risks more visible and comparable. Clarity does not eliminate risk. It makes risk easier to understand and price.
Q. Will the Clarity Act need revisions after its inception?
Almost certainly, and that should not be viewed as a failure. Crypto market structure is evolving much faster than legislation. Staking, decentralized finance, tokenized securities, governance systems and new custody models will continue creating situations that lawmakers cannot fully anticipate today. The most likely pressure point will be how regulators distinguish a genuinely decentralized network from a project that is decentralized mainly in name.
The treatment of ancillary assets will also need close attention. If those definitions are too broad, weak projects may use them to avoid securities protections. If they are too narrow, the US could recreate the same uncertainty the legislation is supposed to solve. MiCA is a useful reminder that major digital asset legislation is the beginning of a regulatory process, not the end.
The ultimate goal should be durable principles in legislation, adaptable rules from regulators and, importantly, a formal review after the market has operated under said framework for a reasonable period. The biggest mistake would be expecting the first version to be perfect and then refusing to adjust as the market develops. Currently, the factual framing is consistent with the latest Senate language, which includes initial and semiannual disclosures, insider resale limits, intermediary registrations, customer asset protections and divided SEX and CFTC responsibilities.
- Trevor Overko, co-founder, Sapien
Anvil: The Missing Collateral Layer
Anvil: The Missing Collateral Layer
Anvil is a shared on-chain collateral layer built on a programmable letter of credit: reserve assets as a guarantee -no loan, no interest, keep custody & yield.
Anvil is a shared on-chain collateral layer built on a programmable letter of credit: reserve assets as a guarantee -no loan, no interest, keep custody & yield.
Why it matters:
Anvil is a shared on-chain collateral layer built on a programmable letter of credit: reserve assets as a guarantee -no loan, no interest, keep custody & yield.
0 Comments
Log in to join the conversation.No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.