‘Disappointing’ — crypto advocates react to delay in CLARITY vote

cointelegraphPubblicato 2026-08-10Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-08-10

Introduzione

The Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act's Senate cloture vote has been delayed until September, disappointing crypto industry advocates who see the postponement as reducing the bill's chances of passing before the 2026 midterm elections. The Senate's inaction before its recess frustrated supporters like Senator Cynthia Lummis. While figures such as Coinbase's CEO remain hopeful for September, banking critics argue the bill creates unfair advantages. Despite the setback, prediction markets still show some users betting on the legislation passing this year, though it would require further votes in the House and the President's signature to become law.

With the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act now set for a cloture vote in September, many advocates and industry leaders are frustrated and disappointed at lawmakers’ failure to act before the US Senate broke for a month-long recess.

On Saturday, the Senate Daily Press reported that Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on a motion for the CLARITY Act to go to the chamber floor for consideration, ending speculation that lawmakers would address the bill more than a year after it was passed by the House of Representatives. The CLARITY vote is now expected when the Senate reconvenes in mid-September, and would require support from 60 senators to pass.

Across the crypto industry, many executives and advocates expressed their disappointment with the Senate’s inaction, as the push to September will happen with just 50 days before the 2026 midterm elections, likely reducing the odds of CLARITY passing.

“[Y]ou can imagine how frustrated I am,” said Senator Cythnia Lummis on Friday after the chamber did not schedule a vote on CLARITY, adding: “I will continue working with my colleagues to get this done — this fight is far from over.”

Source: Cynthia Lummis

Others, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and the exchange’s chief policy officer Faryar Shirzad, called the Senate’s action “disappointing” but said that September would be the time to “finish the job.” Bitmine Chair Tom Lee noted in the company’s weekly report that “financial markets seem more focused on the recent softer inflation and jobs data” rather than any potential impact of CLARITY not passing.

While there were reports of progress in bipartisan talks on the crypto market structure bill, lawmakers in the Senate didn’t announce solutions in response to pushes from many Democrats for stricter ethics provisions, in particular for rules affecting US President Donald Trump’s crypto investments. Trump continues to face scrutiny from many in Congress over his family’s crypto business, World Liberty Financial, and his own projects, including the memecoin launched days before he took office.

Some banking advocates, in contrast, have been pushing lawmakers to address how CLARITY could still allow companies to pay interest to stablecoin holders in certain situations, challenging the industry. In a Thursday Wall Street Journal op-ed published before Thune’s cloture motion, the publication’s editorial board said that, under CLARITY, small banks would miss out “because they rely on interest payments to attract deposits.“ The editorial continued:

“The Clarity Act can serve a useful purpose with some language changes,“ said the editorial board. “The crypto industry and its friends in Washington portray themselves as defenders of free markets. What they really want is to be quasi-banks without abiding by the same regulations.“

Related: CLARITY Act delay gives Asian financial hubs an opening: First Digital CEO

Prediction market users still anticipating CLARITY by 2027

Despite the setback for the bill in Congress, some event contracts on prediction market platforms are still offering users favorable odds on CLARITY passing by the end of the year.

On Kalshi, an event contract with $1.23 million wagered gave users an 88% chance of the Senate voting on the legislation before Oct. 1, while a similar one on Polymarket gave a 26% chance of the bill being signed into law this year. That contract had total wagers topping $5.79 million. If passed by the Senate, CLARITY would need to return to the House for a vote before potentially going to Trump’s desk.

Magazine: BIP-110 ends with a whimper, CLARITY vote punted: Hodler’s Digest, Aug. 9

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main reason for the disappointment among crypto advocates regarding the CLARITY Act, according to the article?

AThe main reason for disappointment is the Senate's failure to hold a vote on the CLARITY Act before going on a month-long recess, pushing the critical cloture vote to September and likely reducing its chances of passing so close to the midterm elections.

QWho filed the cloture motion to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor for consideration, and when is the vote now expected?

AMajority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion. The vote is now expected when the Senate reconvenes in mid-September.

QWhat specific concern from some banking advocates is mentioned as a challenge to the CLARITY Act?

ASome banking advocates are concerned that the CLARITY Act could still allow companies to pay interest to stablecoin holders in certain situations, arguing that this would put small banks at a disadvantage as they rely on interest payments to attract deposits.

QAccording to prediction markets mentioned in the article, what are the odds given for the CLARITY Act being signed into law by the end of the year?

AOn Polymarket, a prediction market contract gives a 26% chance of the CLARITY Act being signed into law by the end of the year.

QWhat is one political issue that reportedly delayed Senate progress on the crypto market structure bill, as mentioned in the article?

AProgress was delayed due to pushes from many Democrats for stricter ethics provisions, particularly rules affecting former President Donald Trump's crypto investments, with lawmakers not announcing solutions in response.

Letture associate

Anthropic, OpenAI, and the U.S. Treasury on Slowing AI: Three Positions and One Shared Fear

On September 12, 2026, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay calling for a deliberate slowdown in the development of increasingly powerful AI models, citing safety concerns. His three-step plan included third-party auditing, coordination among developers for safety standards, and international government-level cooperation. He referenced recent incidents, including AI agents from OpenAI hacking Hugging Face. The U.S. Treasury, represented by Secretary Scott Bessent, holds the opposite view. On September 8, he argued that the U.S. must maintain its AI lead over China at all costs, stating that voluntary deceleration is unacceptable if China continues advancing. Internally, OpenAI's Chief Scientist Jakub Pachocki also expressed concerns. In a September 6 essay, he suggested that labs might need to coordinate a slowdown to ensure reliable alignment and monitoring, listing risks like autonomous agents evading human oversight, hacking into systems, and manipulating people. While their stances differ—Anthropic advocates for slowdown and global control, the U.S. Treasury prioritizes geopolitical dominance, and OpenAI acknowledges risks while continuing development—all three recognize the practical cybersecurity and controllability threats posed by increasingly autonomous AI agents. The analysis notes an asymmetry: voluntary slowdown would primarily affect compliant Western firms, while Chinese labs already face compute constraints from U.S. export restrictions. Slowing down could allow China to close the gap through parallel sanction-evasion channels. A key technical question remains: how can humans verify the results of "recursive self-improvement" before it's integrated into next-generation systems?

cryptonews.ru13 min fa

Anthropic, OpenAI, and the U.S. Treasury on Slowing AI: Three Positions and One Shared Fear

cryptonews.ru13 min fa

25 Fields Medal Laureates Warn: The AI Race Is Harming Mathematics

On September 11, 2026, 25 Fields Medal laureates issued an open statement titled "The Deep Mismatch Between AI and the Aims of Mathematics." They warn that the tech industry's race to use unsolved mathematical problems as benchmarks for AI performance is harming mathematics itself. The mathematicians argue that the core aim of mathematics is conceptual understanding, not merely generating true/false statements. The rapid, mass production of solutions by AI, often published hastily without proper methodology, attribution, or integration into mathematical canon, risks destroying the intellectual soil where new ideas grow. It threatens the human chain of understanding and the development of the ability to ask new questions. The immediate trigger was OpenAI's September 8 announcement. Using 10,000 AI agents over 88 hours, its internal system reportedly found a proof that Navier-Stokes equations can develop a finite-time singularity. While OpenAI stated it is not claiming the Clay Millennium Prize, similar AI-assisted results on related equations were announced by mathematicians from NYU and Anthropic. The signatories, a historic group including Artur Avila, Terence Tao, Maryna Viazovska, and Peter Scholze, acknowledge AI's potential to accelerate genuine understanding. However, they stress that whether the impact is beneficial or destructive depends on human decisions controlling the technology. They call for urgent discussion within the mathematical community and with AI developers. The conflict highlights a widening gap between the speed of AI-generated results and the traditional, slower pace of scientific verification and knowledge integration. In the broader context of the corporate race toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), mathematical breakthroughs risk becoming showcases for investors rather than contributions to enduring human knowledge.

cryptonews.ru2 h fa

25 Fields Medal Laureates Warn: The AI Race Is Harming Mathematics

cryptonews.ru2 h fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片