Crypto Can Move Without CLARITY – Can America Keep Up?
Grayscale says the crypto industry can keep growing even if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act. The risk is less about disrupting established networks than about the United States losing ground in the next stage of regulated crypto development.
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 warning instead centers on new investment and financial infrastructure, particularly businesses that need predictable rules before committing capital in a specific jurisdiction.
The Senate now has another chance to move CLARITY forward. Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, with the motion set to ripen at 2:15 p.m. on September 15.
Grayscale’s Thesis Goes Beyond Whether Crypto Survives
Pandl draws a sharp line between decentralized networks and the regulated financial businesses being 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 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 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 has been made.
The United States can offer some certainty through SEC rulemaking and other agency decisions. Durability is the weakness of that route. 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.
For businesses choosing between jurisdictions, that difference 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 through an immediate shock to crypto markets.
Trump’s Crypto Ambition Raises the Stakes
Those investment decisions also collide 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.
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.
The relevant comparison for Washington is therefore speed rather than regulatory quality. Trump’s goal is U.S. leadership, but rivals 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 given CLARITY a specific date 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. https://t.co/Px46k5GTlp
— 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.
The result should offer 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.
Alexander Zdravkov is a market analyst and crypto journalist with interests in economics, broader financial markets and digital assets. His journey into crypto began more than four years ago, driven by a fascination with the rapid evolution of blockchain technology and the transformative potential of decentralized finance. He began analyzing market cycles and identifying emerging trends before they reach the mainstream. He holds a degree in International Relations - a background that helped shape his broader perspective on global economics, geopolitics, and the interconnected nature of modern financial markets. Whether covering the latest developments in the crypto sector or exploring broader macroeconomic themes, Alexander focuses on giving readers context rather than simply repeating headlines. During his career, he has authored more than 5,000 articles covering cryptocurrencies, traditional finance, and global market developments. His work spans everything from Bitcoin and altcoins to macroeconomic trends influencing risk assets worldwide.
