New York Attorney General Opposes CLARITY Act and Calls for Its Review

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-07-28Last updated on 2026-07-28

Abstract

New York Attorney General Letitia James opposes the CLARITY Act, warning it would limit state law enforcement's ability to combat crypto fraud. She cites a tripling of crypto-related complaints and $500 million in losses in New York over five years. James argues the Act undermines local authority to pursue bad actors and calls on Congress to enact stricter regulations instead. Her proposed framework includes enforcing AML and user verification rules, banning access for foreign companies, prohibiting conversion to dollars for untraceable assets, and requiring platforms to monitor and report suspicious activity. She emphasizes that state and local agencies handle most law enforcement and that the Act would weaken investor protections. The bill is currently in the Senate, with consideration delayed due to other priorities.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James stated that the Cryptocurrency Market Structure bill (CLARITY Act) would restrict the activities of law enforcement agencies at the state level, complicating the fight against fraud in the crypto sphere. In this regard, she called on Congress to introduce stricter regulations for this sector.

According to James, in New York State alone, the number of complaints regarding cryptocurrency fraud has tripled in recent years. Furthermore, the volume of losses from such activities over five years, according to the Attorney General's office, amounts to about $500 million. And this is only in the state of New York, she emphasized.

The Attorney General believes that the CLARITY Act would undermine the ability of local authorities to pursue criminals in this field and impose sanctions against unscrupulous counterparties. She also advocates for Congress to impose a complete ban on elected officials and recently departed government employees from regulating the crypto sphere.

Instead, she proposes passing a bill with the following points:

  • Require crypto companies to comply with anti-money laundering (AML), counter-terrorist financing, and user verification measures;
  • Create a closed market inaccessible to foreign companies;
  • Prohibit the conversion into dollars for those crypto assets whose origin cannot be traced, including privacy tokens;
  • A ban on exempting crypto assets from the provisions of money transmission, commodity, and securities laws;
  • Require crypto companies to monitor abnormal activity and report it;

Require platforms and intermediaries to protect Americans from fraud and scams, and hold them accountable for failing to meet this requirement.

"The CLARITY Act aims to interfere with and preempt state investor protection laws, as well as weaken our ability to pursue fraud. This is a mistake. The lion's share of law enforcement work in this country is done by state and local authorities," James summarized.

Also, in the Attorney General's opinion, the framework bill for the crypto market should aim for maximum transparency.

At what stage is the CLARITY Act currently?

The bill has been sent to the Senate for further consideration. If approved, the bill will return to the House of Representatives before being sent to the President for signature. However, as we reported earlier, consideration in the Senate has been postponed due to more pressing issues.

Read more about the initiative's progress:

The CLARITY Act has many opponents. Among them, for example, are Democrats who insist on including expanded ethics provisions in the bill.

end-content

Related Questions

QWho is opposing the CLARITY Act and why?

ANew York Attorney General Letitia James is opposing the CLARITY Act. She argues it would limit the power of state-level law enforcement agencies, complicate the fight against cryptocurrency fraud, and undermine local authorities' ability to pursue offenders and sanction bad actors. She believes it interferes with and preempts state investor protection laws.

QWhat data did Letitia James cite regarding cryptocurrency fraud in New York?

ALetitia James stated that in New York State alone, complaints about crypto-asset fraud have tripled in recent years. Furthermore, over five years, losses from such activities total approximately $500 million, according to her office.

QWhat key measures does Attorney General James propose instead of the CLARITY Act?

AShe proposes legislation that would: 1) Obligate crypto companies to comply with AML, counter-terrorism financing, and user verification rules; 2) Create a closed market inaccessible to foreign companies; 3) Ban conversion to dollars for crypto-assets with untraceable origins, including privacy tokens; 4) Prohibit exempting crypto-assets from money transmitter, commodity, and securities laws; 5) Require crypto companies to monitor and report anomalous activity; 6) Hold platforms and intermediaries accountable for protecting Americans from fraud.

QWhat is the current legislative status of the CLARITY Act?

AThe bill has been sent to the Senate for further consideration. If approved there, it would return to the House of Representatives before being sent to the President for signing. However, Senate consideration has reportedly been delayed due to more pressing legislative priorities.

QWhat is the fundamental goal Letitia James believes a crypto market framework should aim for?

AAttorney General James believes that a framework for the crypto market should be aimed at achieving maximum transparency.

Related Reads

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

Has the crypto utopia collapsed? The industry is at an inflection point as the hype fades. The prevailing view is that crypto has become an outlet for excess liquidity, with many participants leaving as financial returns have fallen short of past-decade expectations. The 2021 boom has been revealed as an illusion, placing the industry in the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner's Hype Cycle. This forces a return to first principles: re-evaluating token value, securing DeFi protocols, and finding real-world applications. The core failure is a repetitive cycle of reflexive speculation, driven by the premature liquidity of tokens. The industry's incentives prioritized short-term gains over genuine innovation. While curiosity drives invention, recent DeFi hacks signal a need for engineering and iteration, including token models. The culture is shifting; the industry is no longer in its early stages. Positioned at a turning point on the technology adoption curve, crypto faces the immense challenge of rebuilding finance from scratch, a process of inevitable iteration and failure. Regarding crypto VC, claims of its death are overstated. The exceptional returns of 2016-2021 were an anomaly. The initial crypto-anarchist ethos has largely been co-opted by Wall Street and regulators. The utopian vision is over; the industry is being assimilated into the existing system, becoming a business. Current viable project categories include stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenized assets/RWA, perpetual contracts, and AI/agent integration. Crypto is converging with fintech, far from the envisioned DeFi revolution, and must find killer apps within regulatory boundaries. A reconciliation is possible: cryptocurrency may change value storage and transfer in subtle, imperceptible ways that integrate into existing systems, rather than through revolutionary fanfare. True creativity often emerges from adversity. There remains much to build for those driven by genuine curiosity.

marsbit15m ago

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

marsbit15m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

On July 28th, Changxin Technology's stock price on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board experienced minor fluctuations. The company had made a historic market debut the previous day, becoming the first A-share stock to record a single-day trading volume exceeding 1 trillion yuan. This led to significant paper gains for its strategic investors. Among them, Xiaomi's wholly-owned subsidiary was allocated 18.24 million shares with an initial investment of approximately 158 million yuan. Reports estimated a paper profit of 717 million yuan for Xiaomi founder Lei Jun based on his shareholding structure. However, a Xiaomi executive clarified that this was a corporate investment and should not be conflated with personal wealth. Other major beneficiaries included Alibaba and Nio. Alibaba, an early investor, held nearly a 5% stake through two entities, with an estimated paper gain exceeding 160 billion yuan. Nio, participating in the strategic placement, also saw substantial paper returns. Additionally, state-owned banks and insurance institutions that invested in Changxin recorded potential gains in the hundreds of billions. Conversely, companies like Country Garden reportedly missed out on nearly 50 billion yuan in potential gains after divesting their stakes before the IPO due to liquidity pressures. The article notes that these are paper profits based on the listing price, as the allocated shares are subject to lock-up periods, and final realized gains will depend on future stock performance. An employee from Changxin Technology commented that ordinary staff remain focused on their salaries and benefits rather than the market hype.

marsbit24m ago

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

marsbit24m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

"The Token vs. Outcome Sale: Key Paradoxes in the AI Business Model By mid-2026, the AI industry shows rapid growth in revenue and token usage, yet the underlying business models differ significantly. This article analyzes four structural paradoxes defining the current landscape, all pointing to the commoditization of intelligence and the concentration of profits in few segments. **The Cost Paradox: Cheaper Tokens, Heavier Bills** Despite a >95% price drop for equivalent AI capability since 2023, total spending has skyrocketed due to the Jevons Paradox: lower prices expand usage into previously uneconomical tasks. Furthermore, the shift to autonomous agents operating 24/7 multiplies consumption. However, efficiency gains often remain unrealized due to unchanged organizational workflows (the Solow Paradox). The focus is shifting from optimizing token price to optimizing the task itself. **The Hierarchy Paradox: The App is King vs. The App is Dead** While conventional wisdom holds that value accrues at the application layer, the AI stack is inverted. Infrastructure (chips) captures ~70% of industry revenue and ~80% of gross profit, while application-layer margins are thin (0-30%). Fast-evolving base models threaten "thin" apps. Sustainable applications are those that embed intelligence into specific contexts, possessing private data, workflows, or delivery capabilities that become more valuable as the base model improves. **The Responsibility Paradox: Profit Follows Accountability** Growth rates alone don't guarantee profit. A key differentiator is a company's willingness and ability to take responsibility for specific outcomes. Selling by the token competes for IT budgets; selling by the outcome (e.g., a resolved support ticket) taps into larger human labor budgets. Low-responsibility, high-volume tasks (e.g., generic客服) face commoditization. High-stakes, regulated domains (e.g., law, healthcare) where vendors assume heavier liability for results command higher margins, as seen with companies like Harvey in legal tech. **The Open-Source Paradox: Open Wins Traffic, Closed Wins Revenue** Open-source models dominate in usage share and developer adoption, often being 5-20x cheaper. However, closed-source models still capture the majority of enterprise spending (~89%). Enterprises pay a premium for closed-source reliability, support, compliance, and accountability. The total cost of ownership (TCO) is converging as closed-source prices fall faster than open-source builds trust, leading to hybrid deployments. Profit is migrating from the model layer itself to upstream (compute) and downstream (orchestration, data, services)."

marsbit25m ago

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

marsbit25m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片