Key Takeaways

• Grayscale does not see CLARITY as essential to crypto's continued growth.
• Without a federal framework, new U.S. investment could move elsewhere.
• Trump wants U.S. crypto leadership as rival jurisdictions set their own rules.
• The Senate faces its next CLARITY procedural test on September 15.

In a new research note, Grayscale Head of Research Zach Pandl argues that Bitcoin's role as a store of value, established blockchain networks and stablecoin payments are unlikely to depend on whether CLARITY becomes law.

His concern instead focuses on new investment and financial infrastructure, especially businesses that require predictable rules before committing capital to a specific jurisdiction.

The Senate now has another opportunity to advance CLARITY. Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, and the motion is set to ripen at 2:15 p.m. on September 15.

Grayscale's Thesis Goes Beyond Whether Crypto Survives

Pandl draws a clear distinction between decentralized networks and the regulated financial businesses built around them.

Bitcoin can continue producing blocks without a new U.S. market-structure law. Major blockchains can process transactions regardless of the Senate calendar, and existing digital-asset demand does not disappear simply because legislation stalls.

Exchanges, institutional intermediaries and tokenized financial products face a different calculation. They depend on licenses, banking relationships, regulatory approvals and large capital commitments tied to a particular jurisdiction.

That makes CLARITY more relevant to the financial layer developing around crypto than to the underlying technology itself. Congress may have limited influence over whether Bitcoin keeps operating, but it has considerably more influence over where regulated crypto businesses choose to expand.

CLARITY Is Increasingly a Capital-Allocation Question

Pandl's warning about investment follows directly from that difference.

Companies do not necessarily need perfect regulation before committing capital, but they do need confidence that the rules governing their business will remain workable after the investment is made.

The United States can provide some certainty through SEC rulemaking and other agency decisions, but that route has a durability problem. An interpretation adopted under one administration can be revised under another, challenged in court or constrained by the statutes regulators are interpreting.

A market-structure law changes the calculation by placing core rules in federal statute rather than leaving them primarily to agency discretion. The CLARITY Act, which cleared the House in 2025, is designed to establish clearer lines of oversight between the SEC and the CFTC for digital-asset markets, addressing a jurisdictional ambiguity that companies have cited as a central obstacle to long-term planning.

For businesses choosing between jurisdictions, that distinction can influence where a trading platform is established, where a tokenized product launches or where an institution decides to deploy capital. The cost of legislative uncertainty may therefore appear gradually in investment decisions rather than as an immediate shock to crypto markets.

Trump's Crypto Ambition Raises the Stakes

Those investment decisions also intersect with Trump's push to make the United States a global center for digital assets.

As we examined in our analysis of Trump's push for U.S. crypto dominance, the president has repeatedly framed digital assets as an international competition in which America should lead rather than surrender ground to rival economies.

Other governments, meanwhile, are putting their own frameworks into law. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, known as MiCA, began taking effect in 2024 and is now fully operational across all EU member states, giving passporting rights to licensed crypto-asset service providers throughout the bloc.

Russia offers one recent example. President Vladimir Putin has signed a new domestic crypto-market framework covering regulated exchanges and digital depositories.

Russia's head start on legislation does not make it the global leader in crypto regulation. Its model is considerably more restrictive than the framework being debated in the United States. What it does show is that competing jurisdictions can keep advancing their own rules while U.S. market-structure legislation remains unsettled.

Russia's recent raid on nine crypto exchange points adds an enforcement backdrop to that shift. The case concerns alleged fraud rather than enforcement of the newly signed licensing regime, but it came as the country was preparing to move toward a more formally regulated crypto market.

For Washington, the relevant comparison is speed rather than regulatory quality. Trump's goal is U.S. leadership, but rival jurisdictions do not need to wait for Congress before defining the rules companies will operate under.

Regulators Can Cover Part of the Gap

Grayscale does not expect federal crypto policy to freeze if Congress fails to act.

Pandl points to progress in institutional custody, banking access and staking policy, while expecting further rulemaking around areas such as tokenized securities.

The SEC has already used its existing authority to clarify how federal securities laws apply to different crypto assets and transactions. Those steps can remove uncertainty without requiring a new act of Congress.

Agency action still cannot provide everything a market-structure statute can. Regulators administer existing law; Congress can establish new statutory responsibilities and a framework designed specifically for digital-asset markets.

The practical difference is permanence. Rulemaking can improve today's operating environment, while legislation gives companies a stronger basis for planning across political cycles.

September 15 Is the Next Test, Not a Final Vote

The Senate has now set a specific date for CLARITY to show whether it still has a viable path forward.

Fox Business journalist Eleanor Terrett posted on X on August 8 that Thune had filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the legislation, with the Senate returning to the matter at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, September 15.

🚨NEW: Majority Leader Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Clarity Act. It will be voted on by the Senate after they return at 2:15 PM on Tuesday, September 15, as agreed to by the Senate this morning. — Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) August 8, 2026

🚨NEW: Majority Leader Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to the Clarity Act. It will be voted on by the Senate after they return at 2:15 PM on Tuesday, September 15, as agreed to by the Senate this morning. — Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) August 8, 2026

The Senate's official schedule confirms that cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 and that the motion will ripen at that time.

September 15 is not a final vote on the CLARITY Act itself. Senators will instead decide whether to advance toward consideration of the legislation. Cloture requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill's supporters will need bipartisan support to move forward.

The result should provide a clearer indication of whether enough political support exists to keep CLARITY moving after months of uncertainty over its Senate prospects.

The Test Is Whether Washington Can Keep Up

The U.S. can move forward without CLARITY, just as crypto can. The risk is that other jurisdictions move faster, giving the next wave of regulated products and investment more reasons to build elsewhere.

For an administration promising global crypto leadership, that makes September 15 a test of whether Washington can keep pace with the industry it wants to lead.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal or investment advice.