ARB Price Signals Spur Speculation of 70x Upside in Hodler Digest

After a year of legislative momentum, the US Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act when a cloture motion fell short. The proposal—intended to clarify parts of US crypto market structure—needed 60 votes to proceed and instead received 49 in favor and 50 against, effectively stalling the bill for the current Congress.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis signaled that his “no” vote may have been tactical rather than final, indicating he switched positions late to preserve the ability to call a new vote later. Still, multiple lawmakers and industry figures point to an increasingly narrow window for compromise before the legislative calendar tightens further.

Key takeaways

• The Senate cloture vote on the CLARITY Act failed 49–50, preventing immediate progress toward passage.
• Tillis suggested he changed his vote at the last minute to enable another attempt later, but timing constraints remain severe.
• Regulators moved quickly in the legislative vacuum: the SEC announced a five-year exemption for limited tokenized US stock trading, and the CFTC provided additional regulatory relief for “passive software” providers.
• The House advanced separate crypto policy measures, including a committee approval for a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” framework and progress on crypto tax legislation.

Why CLARITY’s cloture failure matters for crypto market structure

The Senate’s decision is significant less for what it signals about individual lawmakers and more for what it delays for the broader market. CLARITY has been positioned as a legislative solution to long-running questions about how certain crypto activities should be regulated in the US. With cloture failing, lawmakers cannot simply move forward through the usual legislative pipeline during this session.

Although Tillis’s comments introduce uncertainty—because a similar dynamic has played out with other bills—lawmakers close to the process emphasized that time is now a binding constraint. Congressman Shri Thanedar, a Democrat who backed CLARITY in the House, described the remaining timeline as a major barrier.

“There are only 20 legislative days left in this Congress, all of them after the midterms, making odds of a 2026 compromise, unfortunately, very low.”

In addition to the vote math, congressional scheduling has created a practical problem. NEAR’s chief legal officer, Abhishek Vaidyanathan, pointed out that the House had already canceled two “sitting weeks,” and noted that the Senate’s state work period began on October 5. With that backdrop, the likely opportunity for a revised approach may shift to the next Congress rather than being settled before the current session ends.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks also argued that negotiations were close right up to the moment of voting, but said Republican leadership shut down the effort at the last minute. Meanwhile, seven Democratic senators who had opposed the bill claimed they remain committed to passing it at some point—suggesting the political disagreements that surfaced during the cloture process have not been resolved, only postponed.

SEC and CFTC steps fill part of the regulatory gap

CLARITY’s collapse did not leave the industry waiting. In the days following the Senate vote, the SEC announced a five-year “Innovation Exemption” designed to allow limited trading of tokenized US stocks on decentralized public blockchains. The exemption aims to enable trading mechanisms that use automated market makers while avoiding registration as securities exchanges.

However, the exemption is not blanket coverage. The SEC’s framework does not extend to “synthetic” stock tokens that do not offer holders the same rights as traditional stock. The limitation matters because some tokenized stock products have structured exposure differently—meaning existing issuance and future product design could be directly affected by whether token holders receive full stock-like rights.

Separately, the CFTC also outlined a path for incremental compliance and expansion. It issued a no-action position for qualifying “passive software” providers—entities that connect users to regulated derivatives firms and exchanges—stating it would not recommend enforcement against qualifying providers or certain personnel for failing to register as introducing brokers or associated persons.

For application developers and wallet ecosystems, that relief could reduce friction for product features that route users into regulated derivatives trading venues. The policy still leaves room for interpretation on what qualifies as “passive” facilitation, which means operators will likely continue to scrutinize their product workflows and disclosures.

The CFTC has also submitted draft crypto market rules to the White House: “Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets.” At the time of reporting, the action was listed as being in a pre-rule stage, meaning it had not yet reached formal proposal.

Regulatory movement is also visible in the private sector’s filings with the CFTC. Coinbase applied to offer 24/5 perpetual futures trading tied to individual US stocks, and Kalshi filed a similar proposal on the same day—both efforts aimed at expanding regulated futures access within the US framework.

House committee advances Bitcoin reserve and tax certainty

While the Senate stalled CLARITY, other parts of Congress advanced crypto-adjacent legislation. The House Committee on Financial Services passed the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026. The bill would codify an existing executive order establishing a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” and also contemplate a broader “Digital Asset Stockpile” containing other forfeited cryptocurrencies held within the US Department of the Treasury.

Beyond formalizing the reserve concept, the legislation would require federal agencies to provide a full audit of digital assets they hold and to submit quarterly “proof of reserve” reports. It also directs a study of budget-neutral acquisition strategies for increasing Bitcoin holdings.

On the tax side, the House Ways and Means Committee advanced the Digital Asset Tax Certainty Act with bipartisan support. The reporting describes it as legislation aimed at reshaping how the federal government taxes digital assets—an area that has remained a practical concern for both investors and businesses due to uncertainty about classification and reporting.

Beyond policy: security and research signals for the wider ecosystem

The week’s policy developments were paired with security and research items that underline ongoing risks in the crypto economy.

One high-profile case involved a Revolut data breach that escalated into extortion. After sensitive customer data—including passports and KYC selfies—was stolen, a second hacker reportedly demanded a $3 million payout in Monero within 24 hours, threatening to sell customer records. Earlier reports had referenced a separate demand by another group for Bitcoin. The coverage also highlighted how KYC document storage across many companies can create “honeypot” targets for attackers.

From a research standpoint, a Chainalysis report found a sharp rise in onchain malware storage tied to state-linked actors. According to the report, new activity involving attackers storing malware instructions or infrastructure information on public blockchains increased by 420% over the past 12 months, with state-related actors accounting for roughly two-thirds of new activity each quarter.

Researchers at the Bank for International Settlements additionally warned about measurement problems in Bitcoin analytics. They found that estimates of onchain transfer values can vary dramatically—up to sixfold—depending on how transactions are measured, including treatment of change outputs and transfers back to the sender. The same methodological issue can also distort comparisons with Bitcoin market capitalization measures.

What to watch next as CLARITY’s window shrinks

With Senate cloture on CLARITY failing and lawmakers citing limited legislative days remaining, the near-term focus for many market participants is likely to shift from a single comprehensive bill to a patchwork of regulatory guidance and exemptions. The key question now is whether political leadership can find a viable pathway for CLARITY later—or whether the next Congress will be where the most consequential crypto market-structure changes finally take shape.