Regulatory Clarity Could Bring Crypto Firms Back to US, Lawyer Says

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY) has emerged as a focal point in the United States’ ongoing effort to establish a formal, enforceable regulatory framework for digital assets. Proponents argue that a comprehensive, federally coordinated regime would end years of regulatory ambiguity, reduce compliance risk for firms, and spur domestic innovation. Bill Hughes, senior counsel and director of global regulatory matters at Consensys, frames CLARITY as a potential inflection point for the US crypto industry.

Hughes notes that the U.S. dollar remains the world’s largest fiat on-ramp for crypto, with on-ramp volume exceeding $2.4 trillion in the 12 months from July 2024 to June 2025. While off-ramp and trading activity span a broad global mix, the current regulatory landscape has not adequately aligned incentives or supervision for firms seeking to operate within the United States. That divergence helps explain why substantial portions of trading activity occur outside US borders, underscoring the regulatory gap CLARITY intends to address.

Key takeaways

• CLARITY seeks to establish a formal federal framework for digital assets, licensing, and enforcement, aiming to end regulatory uncertainty and attract domestic project development.
• The U.S. dollar’s dominant role in crypto on-ramping contrasts with trading activity concentrated on non-US exchanges, highlighting regulatory and supervisory gaps.
• According to industry data, Binance accounted for more than 38% of centralized exchange trading volume in December 2025; Coinbase was the sole US-based exchange among the top 10 by market share in 2025, at 6.1% (per Coingecko).
• Legislative momentum faces a tight window due to the upcoming midterm elections, with a Senate markup for the CLARITY Act anticipated in the weeks following this report.
• Public and industry sentiment shows notable support for CLARITY, though political and legal uncertainties persist, as reflected in a cross-partisan poll and cautious statements from industry executives.

Regulatory clarity and domestic competitiveness

Advocates argue that codifying a clear federal regime would provide predictable rules for token classification, registration, custody, and governance, reducing legal risk for issuers, exchanges, banks, and other market participants seeking to operate in the United States. By setting consistent standards, CLARITY could lower barriers to entry for compliant projects and encourage investment in U.S. crypto ecosystems, while enabling robust oversight to align anti-money laundering (AML) and investor protection objectives with evolving market realities.

As Consensys’s Hughes emphasizes, the absence of a stable framework has forced many players to navigate a patchwork of state and federal positions, creating a chilling effect on innovation and capital deployment. CLARITY’s proponents argue that a formalized regime would harmonize regulatory expectations across agencies, reduce duplicative compliance costs, and provide a clear path for licensing and regulatory oversight that current enforcement ambiguity has inhibited.

Beyond the immediate impact on firms’ risk profiles, supporters contend that clarified rules would support financial institutions seeking banking relationships and custody solutions for crypto activities, potentially broadening access to traditional banking rails for compliant crypto businesses. The broader question remains how the framework would delineate activities that are permissible versus those requiring registration, exclusion, or ongoing supervisory oversight—a topic that will significantly shape sectoral strategies in the years ahead.

Market structure and cross-border dynamics

The competitive landscape for centralized crypto trading remains highly global. Hughes highlights that the United States, despite its size and sophistication, has yet to translate trading volume into equivalent domestic exchange dominance. Binance, a non-US venue, accounted for over 38% of centralized exchange trading volume in December 2025, underscoring the scale of non-US platforms in the current market structure. The implication for the domestic ecosystem is twofold: while on-ramp activity has a substantial dollar value, on-exchange trading activity remains disproportionately concentrated abroad, complicating enforcement, licensing, and tax and compliance oversight.

Data from CoinGecko’s 2025 market-share publication shows Coinbase as the sole US-based exchange among the top 10 centralized venues by trading volume, with a market share of 6.1%. The disparity between on-ramp volume and exchange share illustrates the frictional gap between capital inflows and domestic trading activity under the prevailing regulatory environment. Supporters of CLARITY argue that a coherent U.S. regime could improve domestic exchange competitiveness by clarifying registration and supervision for US-based venues and their participants, while simultaneously strengthening enforcement against non-compliant actors operating in the broader market.

From a policy and risk-management standpoint, the concentration of activity outside the United States has implications for AML/KYC compliance, supervisory coordination, and cross-border enforcement. A formal framework would likely require clear delineation of which activities fall under securities versus commodities or other classifications, and would set licensing expectations for digital-asset firms, custodians, and gateway providers that interact with traditional financial institutions. In practice, this could influence how banks assess crypto integrations, how exchanges manage customer onboarding, and how investors’ protections are operationalized across platforms with varying regulatory alignments.

Legislative trajectory and near-term milestones

Time is a critical factor for CLARITY as the political calendar tightens ahead of the November midterm elections. Industry observers describe the legislative window as unforgiving: if momentum stalls during the August recess and the midterm cycle intensifies, the opportunity to enact a comprehensive crypto market framework could extend well into 2030. Stakeholders are watching closely for a potential markup in the Senate Banking Committee that would advance the bill toward floor consideration and conference negotiations with the House.

At Consensus 2026 in Miami, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse cautioned that, despite signs of progress, passage into law remains not guaranteed. His remarks reflect a broader sense of cautious optimism tempered by structural and political hurdles that have characterized crypto regulation debates for years. The near-term legislative path hinges on bipartisan alignment, executive-branch coordination, and the ability of lawmakers to reconcile differences over the scope, definitions, and oversight mechanisms that CLARITY would implement.

Public sentiment also figures into the regulatory calculus. A HarrisX poll conducted in May surveyed 2,028 registered U.S. voters and found that 52% supported passing the CLARITY Act. The poll indicated cross-party backing, with respondents from multiple political affiliations expressing favorable views toward establishing a formal federal framework for digital-assets activity. While polls reflect opinion, they do not guarantee legislative outcomes, and the regulatory process will still require detailed drafting, committee consideration, and potential amendments to satisfy both chambers of Congress and the administration.

In parallel, key procedural developments continue to shape the bill’s fate. The text and legislative text alignment would be tested against agency rulemakings, public comment periods, and potential stakeholder negotiations on definitions, registration timelines, and supervisory authorities. As the regulatory debate evolves, observers will assess how the framework interacts with other policy initiatives, including broader market-structure reform and cross-border cooperation on illicit finance controls and consumer protections.

In sum, CLARITY represents a pivotal attempt to align the United States’ regulatory stance with the rapidly evolving digital-asset landscape. Its passage would mark a meaningful shift toward regulatory predictability, domestic capital formation, and integrated enforcement, with implications for exchanges, banks, investors, and the crypto ecosystem at large. The coming weeks will be determinative as committees advance the bill, stakeholders present their positions, and policymakers weigh the trade-offs between innovation, risk, and robust consumer protections.