\n
![](\"https:\/\/media.crypto.news\/2026\/06\/Clarityactnew2.webp\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
The failed Senate vote on the CLARITY Act has shifted attention toward the SEC and CFTC, while crypto founders and investors prepare for a longer period without a federal market structure law, industry experts told crypto.news.<\/p>\n
\n Summary<\/span>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Sep. 15. The procedural vote<\/a> recorded 49 votes in favor and 50 against, leaving the measure 11 votes short of the 60 required to open debate.<\/p>\n The result did not formally kill the bill, but it removed its immediate route through the Senate. The legislation sought to divide oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission while creating registration paths for crypto trading platforms and other intermediaries.<\/p>\n Sid Powell, CEO and co-founder of Maple Finance, said the regulatory focus would now move from lawmakers to federal agencies. He expects the SEC and CFTC to use existing law, rulemaking and guidance to define the industry\u2019s operating boundaries over the next year.<\/p>\n \u201cThe SEC and CFTC can do a great deal within existing law, through rulemaking and guidance, and that is where the perimeter actually gets drawn over the next year.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Powell said market structure legislation was always more difficult to pass than to introduce. He expects meaningful near-term direction to come from regulators, with comprehensive legislation more likely to return in the next Congress.<\/p>\n Gabor Gurbacs, founder and CEO of OpenAssets, reached a similar conclusion, saying the vote did not resolve questions about regulatory authority, asset classifications or the framework institutions can use.<\/p>\n \u201cThe vote may have stalled. Regulatory work has not.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Gurbacs, however, favors industry-led standards over broad top-down requirements. He argued that large regulatory bodies rely on committees, precedent and risk avoidance, which can produce rules that move more slowly than the technology.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Courtney Olujobi, principal at Moon Pursuit Capital, also expects regulators to deliver most of the immediate progress. She distinguished between agency action, which can change under later administrations, and legislation that gives founders and investors greater long-term confidence.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat this vote means is that, for now, most of the progress will come from regulators rather than Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Edwin Mata, co-founder and CEO of Brickken, agreed that government action does not end when Congress stalls. He said agencies can use their current authority to issue rules and guidance, although the quality of those rules matters more than the mere existence of a framework.<\/p>\n \u201cThe SEC, CFTC and other regulators still have to do their jobs, and we are already seeing them use their existing powers to provide their own rules and guidance.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n
CLARITY Act setback turns attention to US agencies<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n