
Washington’s long-running effort to write clear rules for crypto is moving forward, but not cleanly.
The U.S. Senate has released updated language for a long-anticipated crypto market structure bill, yet deep disagreements remain between lawmakers, committees, and the industry itself. Two separate Senate committees are now pushing different versions of the legislation, and the gaps between them are proving harder to close than many expected.
At stake is nothing less than who regulates crypto in the United States, how stablecoins are allowed to operate, and whether decentralized finance can exist without being squeezed into a framework built for Wall Street.
The market structure effort is split between the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, each advancing its own vision of how digital assets should be governed.
The Agriculture Committee’s draft leans heavily toward expanding the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under this approach, most major cryptocurrencies would be treated as digital commodities, placing them largely outside the Securities and Exchange Commission’s reach.
The Banking Committee’s version, often referred to as the CLARITY Act, takes a more cautious and detailed approach. It attempts to draw clearer legal lines between what counts as a security and what does not, while preserving a significant role for the SEC in overseeing parts of the crypto market.
Both sides say they want regulatory certainty. The problem is they disagree on what that certainty should look like.
At the heart of the debate is a familiar Washington turf war.
Supporters of the Agriculture Committee draft argue that the CFTC is better suited to oversee crypto markets, particularly spot trading for assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum. They point to the agency’s lighter touch, its experience with commodities, and its closer alignment with how crypto markets actually function.
The Banking Committee sees things differently. Its members are more focused on investor protection and worry that shifting too much power to the CFTC could weaken oversight. Their draft tries to preserve the SEC’s role, especially when tokens are issued in ways that resemble traditional securities offerings.
Neither side appears ready to fully back down, which is why the Senate still has not settled on a single unified bill.
Stablecoins, once seen as the least controversial corner of crypto, are now one of the most contentious parts of the bill.
One major sticking point is a proposed restriction on stablecoin rewards or yield. Under the Banking Committee’s draft, issuers would face limits on paying users simply for holding stablecoins.
Crypto companies argue this would kneecap a core feature of digital dollars and make them less competitive with traditional financial products. Some in the industry say the provision feels less like consumer protection and more like an attempt to shield banks from competition.
Lawmakers defending the restriction say they are trying to prevent stablecoins from morphing into unregulated interest-bearing products that could pose risks to consumers and the broader financial system.
The disagreement has become symbolic of a larger divide over how much freedom crypto should have to innovate inside a regulated framework.
Decentralized finance remains one of the hardest issues for lawmakers to solve.
Both Senate drafts struggle with how to treat protocols that do not have a central company, executive team, or traditional governance structure. Some lawmakers want stronger rules to prevent DeFi platforms from being used for illicit activity. Others worry that applying centralized compliance models to decentralized systems will effectively ban them.
For now, DeFi remains an unresolved problem in the bill, with language that critics say is either too vague or too aggressive, depending on who you ask.
Industry frustration boiled over when Coinbase publicly withdrew its support for the Banking Committee’s draft.
The exchange called the proposal worse than the status quo, pointing to its treatment of DeFi, stablecoin yield restrictions, and limits on tokenized equities. Coinbase’s criticism carried weight in Washington and contributed to the Banking Committee delaying its planned markup hearing.
That delay rippled through the market, briefly weighing on crypto prices before sentiment stabilized.
The Agriculture Committee is moving ahead more quickly, scheduling a markup hearing to debate amendments and advance its version of the bill.
The Banking Committee, meanwhile, has pushed its timeline back as lawmakers juggle other priorities, including housing legislation. That has pushed any meaningful progress into late winter or early spring at the earliest.
The longer the process drags on, the more uncertain the path becomes. Election season is approaching, and legislative calendars tend to tighten as political pressure increases.
The market structure debate is happening against a backdrop of recent regulatory action.
Congress has already passed stablecoin legislation that sets rules around reserves, disclosures, and audits. Earlier House efforts, including last year’s market structure bill, also laid groundwork by outlining how digital assets might be classified under federal law.
What the Senate is trying to do now is connect those pieces into a comprehensive framework. That has proven easier said than done.
The next major test will be whether the Agriculture and Banking Committees can reconcile their differences or whether one version gains enough momentum to dominate the process.
Expect heavy lobbying from crypto companies, financial institutions, and trade groups, particularly around stablecoin yield, DeFi protections, and agency jurisdiction.
For now, the Senate’s crypto market structure bill remains a work in progress, ambitious in scope, politically fragile, and still very much unsettled.
One thing is clear. The era of regulatory ambiguity is ending, even if the final shape of crypto regulation in the U.S. is still being fought over line by line.


If you have spent any real time building, trading, or working in crypto in the U.S., you already know the pattern. The rules are never fully clear. Guidance usually comes after the fact. And “compliance” often feels less like a checklist and more like a guessing game.
That is the environment the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, better known as the CLARITY Act, is trying to change.
On January 15, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to hold a critical markup session on the bill. That might sound like inside-baseball legislative procedure, but it is not. A markup is where lawmakers decide what a bill really is. Language gets tightened. Loopholes get closed or widened. Entire sections can disappear.
For crypto, this is one of those moments where the future shape of U.S. regulation is actually being decided.
Right now, crypto regulation in the U.S. is reactive.
The laws that exist were written long before blockchains, tokens, or decentralized networks. Regulators have mostly tried to force crypto into frameworks that were never designed for it, often relying on enforcement actions to define the rules retroactively.
CLARITY is an attempt to stop doing that.
The bill starts from a simple premise: not everything in crypto is the same, so it should not all be regulated the same way.
Launching a token to fund a network is not the same as trading that token years later. Writing open-source code is not the same as holding customer funds. Running a wallet is not the same as running an exchange.
Those distinctions sound obvious inside the industry. CLARITY tries to make them explicit in law.
One of the most important ideas in the bill is that a token’s legal treatment should not be locked forever to how it was first sold.
Under the current system, if a token was ever distributed in a way that looks like fundraising, it can carry securities risk indefinitely. Even if the network decentralizes. Even if the original team steps away. Even if the token functions more like a commodity than an investment.
CLARITY tries to separate:
The initial transaction, which may look like an investment contract
The token itself, once it is broadly distributed and actively used
That distinction matters because it opens the door to secondary markets operating without constant legal uncertainty, while still keeping guardrails around early fundraising.
To make that transition possible, CLARITY introduces the concept of a mature blockchain system.
Stripped of legal language, the question is pretty straightforward: does anyone actually control this thing?
If a small group can still unilaterally change the rules, supply, or governance, regulators get more leverage. If control is meaningfully distributed and no one actor is calling the shots, the regulatory burden can ease.
The bill creates a certification process around this idea, with a defined window for regulators to challenge a claim of maturity.
This is one of the most debated sections of the bill. It is also one of the most important. The standard has to be real, but it also has to be achievable. Senate changes here could dramatically affect how useful the bill ends up being.
CLARITY does not remove oversight from token launches. Instead, it tries to make that oversight fit reality.
The bill allows certain token offerings to proceed under an exemption, but only with meaningful disclosures. Projects would need to explain things like:
How token supply and issuance work
What rights, if any, token holders have
How governance actually functions in practice
What the project plans to build and what risks exist
The shift here is away from clever legal gymnastics and toward plain-English transparency. For founders, that could mean fewer surprises and a clearer sense of what is expected.
For U.S. crypto exchanges, CLARITY is largely about secondary markets.
Today, listing a token can feel risky even if that same asset trades freely outside the U.S. The legal line between primary fundraising and secondary trading has never been cleanly drawn.
CLARITY tries to draw that line. If it holds, exchanges would finally have a framework designed specifically for spot crypto markets, instead of trying to fit into rules written for something else.
Another major shift is regulatory jurisdiction.
CLARITY gives the CFTC clear authority over spot markets for digital commodities, not just derivatives. It also creates new registration paths for exchanges, brokers, and dealers that are tailored to how crypto markets actually function.
Importantly, the bill pushes for speed. It directs the CFTC to create an expedited registration process, acknowledging that waiting years for clarity is not realistic in fast-moving markets.
DeFi is where the bill walks a tightrope.
CLARITY says that people should not be treated as regulated intermediaries just for building or maintaining software, running nodes, providing wallets, or supporting non custodial infrastructure. It also makes clear that participating in certain liquidity pools, by itself, should not automatically trigger exchange-level regulation.
At the same time, fraud and manipulation laws still apply.
Supporters see this as long overdue recognition that infrastructure is not the same as custody or brokerage. Critics worry about edge cases, especially where front ends, admin controls, or governance tokens blur the lines.
This is an area where Senate edits could have outsized impact.
The bill also leans toward stronger federal oversight and narrower state-by-state requirements in certain areas.
For companies, that means fewer conflicting regimes and lower compliance friction. For critics, it raises concerns about losing fast-moving state enforcement in an industry that still sees its share of bad actors.
That tension is not going away, and it will likely surface again during markup.
One of the clearest statements in CLARITY is its protection of self custody.
The bill explicitly affirms the right to hold your own crypto and transact peer to peer for lawful purposes. In an environment where indirect restrictions have been a constant fear, putting this into statute is not symbolic. It is structural.
CLARITY also addresses a long-running concern among builders.
The bill says that non-controlling developers and infrastructure providers should not be treated as money transmitters simply for writing code or publishing software, as long as they do not control user funds or transactions.
For many developers, this removes a quiet but persistent legal cloud that has hung over the industry.
The January 15 markup is where all of this either becomes real or starts to unravel.
This is where lawmakers decide how strict the maturity standards are, how wide the DeFi exclusions go, how much authority regulators actually get, and whether the bill delivers usable clarity or just new gray areas.
If CLARITY moves forward in a recognizable form, it becomes the most serious attempt yet to give crypto a durable U.S. market structure. If it does not, the industry likely stays where it is now, building first and hoping the rules catch up later.
This is also the moment where voices outside Washington still matter.
Lawmakers are actively weighing feedback. Staffers are reading messages. Offices are tracking where their constituents stand. Silence gets interpreted as indifference, and indifference makes it easier for complex bills to stall or be watered down.
If you believe crypto should have clear rules instead of enforcement-by-surprise, this is the time to say so.
That means contacting your representatives. Find out who your representative is and where they stand on crypto policy. Tell them that market structure clarity matters. Explain why builders, users, and businesses need predictable rules to stay in the U.S. Explain why self custody, open infrastructure, and lawful innovation should be protected, not pushed offshore.
It also means supporting organizations that are trying to organize that voice.
One such organization is Rare PAC, a political action committee advocating for regulatory clarity, innovation, and economic opportunity powered by decentralized technologies. Rare PAC works to ensure that the United States remains a global leader in those decentralized technologies and supports candidates who are committed to building A Crypto Forward America.
Bills like CLARITY do not pass or fail in a vacuum. They pass because people show up, speak up, and make it clear that getting this right matters.
January 15 is not the end of the process, but it is one of the moments that will shape everything that comes after.


For years, crypto regulation in the United States felt stuck in a loop. Regulators argued over definitions. Courts weighed in after the fact. Companies tried to guess how existing rules might be applied to new technology. Progress was slow, uneven, and often reactive.
In 2025, something changed.
Instead of debating what crypto is, lawmakers and regulators began focusing on how crypto markets actually function. The shift was not loud or dramatic, but it was meaningful. And it made 2025 one of the most consequential years for U.S. crypto regulation so far.
The defining feature of crypto regulation in 2025 was its practicality.
Regulators spent the year tackling questions that are not especially flashy but matter enormously for market growth. Who is allowed to issue a digital dollar. What backs a stablecoin in real terms. How quickly exchange traded products can be approved. What custody looks like when ownership is defined by control of a private key.
These are not philosophical debates. They are infrastructure decisions. And infrastructure is what determines whether a market stays niche or becomes part of the financial system.
That shift did not mean regulators became more permissive. It meant they became more operational.
The U.S. regulatory structure remains fragmented. Congress sets the legal framework, but oversight is split across agencies.
That structure did not change in 2025. A single digital asset can still fall under multiple regimes depending on how it is traded, marketed, custodied, or used.
What did change is that the parts of crypto that intersect most directly with traditional finance began to get clearer boundaries and processes.
The most significant development of the year was the passage of the GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.
Before this law, stablecoins largely operated under state level money transmission rules or informal regulatory expectations. Issuers relied on disclosures and attestations. Banks stayed cautious, unsure how supervisors might view their involvement.
The new framework set expectations around who can issue payment stablecoins, how reserves must be held, and how redemption works under supervision. In practical terms, it began to treat stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.
That matters because stablecoins sit at the center of crypto trading, payments, and settlement. Clear federal rules make it easier for banks and regulated firms to engage without risking regulatory surprises.
Crypto investment products also moved forward.
The SEC approved generic listing standards for certain commodity based trust products. That change reduced the need for one off negotiations for every new exchange traded product and made approval timelines more predictable.
Predictability may not generate headlines, but it changes behavior. It lowers legal costs, shortens timelines, and makes firms more willing to launch products beyond the most obvious ones. It also makes advisers and institutions more comfortable allocating capital through standardized structures.
Tax treatment improved as well. The IRS introduced a staking safe harbor for certain trust structures, allowing proof of stake assets to generate yield without automatically breaking tax classification. That adjustment brought tax rules closer to how these networks actually operate.
Custody has long been one of crypto’s most difficult issues.
Traditional finance is built around regulated custodians, clear chains of control, and established customer protection rules. Crypto does not fit neatly into that model, since control is defined by private keys rather than physical possession or centralized records.
In late 2025, regulators began addressing this gap more directly. The SEC provided guidance on how broker dealers should approach custody of crypto asset securities. Banking regulators outlined how institutions could apply to issue stablecoins through supervised subsidiaries.
These steps did not eliminate complexity, but they replaced ambiguity with process. In regulated markets, that distinction is crucial.
Not everything was resolved.
The largest unresolved issue remains market structure, particularly the line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act advanced in Congress but did not become law in 2025. That uncertainty continues to influence how companies list tokens and design compliance programs.
Still, the fact that market structure legislation remained active suggests the debate has moved from whether crypto should be regulated to how best to finish the framework.
Most of the regulatory changes in 2025 were not about enforcement actions or penalties. They were about building rules that allow institutions to participate without improvisation.
Stablecoins gained a federal framework. Investment products became more standardized. Custody moved closer to supervision rather than theory.
Taken together, these steps made crypto look less like a legal edge case and more like emerging financial infrastructure.
If 2025 was about laying groundwork, 2026 will be about implementation.
The next phase will involve rulemaking, supervision, and real world deployment. Stablecoin issuers will apply for licenses. Banks will test new payment rails. Product sponsors will launch under clearer standards.
The momentum from 2025 created something the U.S. crypto market has lacked for years: a sense that the rules, while still evolving, are becoming legible.
That may not satisfy everyone. But for a market that thrives on scale, clarity is often more valuable than certainty.
For anyone trying to understand where crypto regulation and policy are actually headed, these conversations are no longer abstract. They are happening in real time, often face to face.
That is part of what makes Rare Evo stand out.
Rare Evo takes place July 28-31, 2026, in Las Vegas at The ARIA Resort & Casino, and has become one of the premier industry event where regulators, policymakers, and blockchain builders share the same room. It is not just a conference about price action or product launches. It is a place to hear directly from the people shaping policy, alongside the teams building the technology those policies will govern.
Panels and discussions at Rare Evo tend to focus on how regulation works in practice, what regulators are actually thinking, and how the industry can engage constructively rather than reactively. For anyone serious about long term adoption, it is one of the more valuable rooms to be in.
You can learn more about the event and purchase tickets at https://rareevo.io/buy-tickets
Alongside that conversation is the role of Rare PAC.
Rare PAC focuses on supporting policymakers who understand digital assets and who are willing to engage seriously with the work of building clear, workable rules in the United States. It is not about opposing regulation. It is about avoiding regulation by confusion or enforcement after the fact.
As 2026 approaches, the progress made in 2025 will only matter if it is protected and extended. That requires continued participation, education, and engagement from people who care about the future of crypto in the US.
For those interested in learning more or getting involved, information is available at https://rarepac.io
If 2025 was the year crypto regulation became practical, the next phase will depend on whether that momentum is carried forward. Conversations like the ones at Rare Evo, and efforts like Rare PAC, are part of how that happens.

After months of build-up the U.S. Senate along with state attorneys general have released a landmark draft of crypto market-structure legislation intended to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for the digital asset industry. The bill seeks to establish clearer rules for exchanges, custodians, stablecoins, and token issuers, signalling a major step in integrating crypto markets into the broader financial-regulatory system.
One of the bill’s cornerstone features is the requirement that platforms offering token trading register as exchanges or alternative trading systems under federal law. Custodial service providers will face enhanced capital, segregation, and reporting standards similar to traditional securities and futures firms. This aims to reduce counterparty risk and improve investor protections.
Stablecoins are addressed explicitly in the legislation. Issuers must maintain redemption rights at par value, hold reserves in approved categories, and submit to regular audits. This creates a regulated pathway for stablecoins to operate under federal oversight rather than piecemeal state rules.
The bill also introduces a clearer set of rules distinguishing when a token is treated as a security versus when it remains a commodity or other asset. Token issuers will face registration or exemption requirements depending on utility, liquidity and decentralization factors. This aims to reduce legal ambiguity for projects and improve market integrity.
The legislation mandates cooperation among the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and state regulators. A new federal-state crypto oversight council is proposed to harmonize enforcement, share data and coordinate cross-border investigations.
Exchanges and token issuers will be required to disclose meaningful risk information, liquidity metrics and relationship with affiliated entities. Retail investors would gain clearer visibility into where their assets are held, how trades are processed and what rights they possess in the case of insolvency or cyber-attack.
For years the crypto industry has operated across fragmented regulatory regimes with varying standards. This legislation offers the possibility of a unified federal framework that could increase trust, lower friction and bring institutional capital to the space.
Clearer rules for custody, trading and stablecoin issuance reduce operational risk for large players. Institutional funds, fiduciaries and corporates may be more willing to enter crypto markets if they can rely on regulated entities rather than offshore or lightly supervised platforms.
While increased regulation introduces burden the bill simultaneously provides clarity. Projects now have clearer paths to token issuance, less fear of regulatory surprise and improved access to U.S. markets. The transparency could foster broader crypto ecosystem growth, especially for high-quality protocols.
Regulatory burden & cost Many smaller projects argue that compliance costs may favour large incumbents and stifle innovation in early-stage ecosystems.
Securities law crossover If tokens are treated as securities many projects may face retroactive registration or litigation risk. The timing and grandfathering provisions will matter.
Implementation complexity Coordinating federal and state regulators, aligning rules across 50 states and dealing with cross-border issues will be operationally intense.
Risk of over-regulation Some stakeholders worry the legislation may push innovation offshore or drive it underground if U.S. rules become too restrictive compared to global peers.
Senate floor votes and committee mark-ups The timeline for passing the legislation will influence market sentiment and business planning.
Rule-making phases Exchanges, custodians and token issuers will monitor how the SEC, CFTC and new oversight council implement the rules.
Stablecoin ecosystem response Will major stablecoin issuers adjust to the new reserve and audit standards and maintain parity?
Token classification outcomes How many tokens will be reclassified as securities and how quickly issuers will respond?
Global regulatory spill-over Other jurisdictions may adopt similar frameworks or respond to U.S. leadership in crypto regulation.
The release of this crypto market-structure legislation marks a milestone in the maturation of the digital asset industry. By creating clearer rules for exchanges, custodians and issuers the U.S. is signalling that crypto is not outside the financial system—it is increasingly part of it.
For markets this means the potential for deeper liquidity, institutional participation and broader adoption—but also higher expectations around compliance, governance and transparency. The next phase of crypto may well depend less on token hype and more on regulated infrastructure, institutional trust and sustainable business models.
As this framework moves through Congress regulators and the industry alike will be watching closely. The outcome will shape not just the next bull market, but how crypto fits into global finance for years to come.
You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

President Donald Trump has nominated Michael Selig to serve as Chair of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The move marks one of the clearest signals yet that the administration intends to take a pro-innovation approach toward digital assets.
If confirmed by the Senate, Selig would succeed acting Chair Caroline Pham and lead one of the key federal agencies overseeing U.S. derivatives and crypto markets. His background in crypto policy and law positions him as a potential bridge between the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which have often clashed over digital asset oversight.
Michael Selig currently serves as Chief Counsel for the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, where he has played a central role in shaping digital asset policy. Before joining the SEC, Selig worked at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, focusing on fintech and blockchain regulation. Earlier in his career, he interned at the CFTC, giving him firsthand insight into how the agency functions.
Throughout his career, Selig has been recognized for his deep understanding of both traditional finance and emerging crypto ecosystems. He is considered one of the few U.S. legal experts who can navigate the complex line between securities and commodities law as it applies to digital assets.
The appointment sends a strong signal that the administration aims to modernize U.S. financial regulation. Selig is known for supporting clear, innovation-friendly frameworks rather than strict enforcement-first approaches.
For years, crypto companies and investors have criticized U.S. regulators for sending mixed messages about what counts as a security versus a commodity. The result has been uncertainty that stifled innovation and pushed some firms overseas. With Selig at the helm, the CFTC may seek to provide clarity while fostering responsible growth in digital markets.
The nomination also reflects a broader shift in Washington. Rather than treating digital assets purely as a threat, policymakers appear to be viewing blockchain technology as an opportunity for U.S. leadership in global finance.
The next step for Selig will be Senate confirmation, a process that could include tough questioning about his crypto-friendly stance. Lawmakers are divided on how much authority the CFTC should have over digital assets, and Selig’s confirmation could become a flashpoint in the broader debate over crypto regulation.
If approved, his leadership could influence key policy areas, including:
CFTC-SEC Coordination: Efforts to align rules between the two agencies and reduce regulatory overlap.
Market Structure Reform: Defining how tokens, stablecoins, and decentralized finance products are classified.
Industry Engagement: Building formal channels for dialogue between regulators and blockchain innovators.
Global Competitiveness: Positioning the U.S. as a leading market for compliant digital asset innovation.
Selig’s nomination comes at a pivotal time for crypto policy. Congress is considering new legislation that could expand or clarify the CFTC’s jurisdiction over digital assets. Having a chair who understands both the technology and the law could make a major difference in how those rules are implemented.
The crypto industry has responded positively, viewing Selig as someone who can combine pragmatic regulation with a commitment to innovation. However, optimism is tempered by the reality that new leadership alone will not resolve all challenges. Effective reform will still require interagency cooperation, clear legislative backing, and strong consumer protections.
Michael Selig’s appointment represents more than just a personnel change. It could mark the start of a new era for U.S. crypto policy, where innovation and regulation are not seen as opposing forces.
If confirmed, Selig will face the challenge of turning a fragmented regulatory landscape into one that encourages growth while maintaining market integrity. His success will depend on balancing ambition with accountability, and on ensuring that the U.S. remains both competitive and credible in the global digital economy.