Blockchain Association Urges Senate To Pass CLARITY Act With Letter Backed By 160 Ex-Officials

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-06-04Обновлено 2026-06-04

Введение

The Blockchain Association, along with 160 former national security and law enforcement officials, has urged Senate leaders to pass the CLARITY Act. They argue that without clear federal regulation, crypto activity will move to opaque offshore markets, hindering U.S. efforts to combat financial crime. The letter highlights that the Act would strengthen law enforcement by expanding anti-money laundering and sanctions requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, improving information sharing between agencies like the Treasury, DOJ, and FBI, and enhancing oversight of digital asset kiosks with measures like transaction monitoring and fraud prevention. The Association emphasizes these are enforcement enhancements, not deregulation. Momentum for the bill is building, with a Senate vote expected this summer, though it would still need reconciliation with a previously passed House version.

The Blockchain Association, one of the industry’s biggest advocacy groups, urged Senate leadership to move forward on the long-awaited CLARITY Act in a letter sent Tuesday to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, signed by 160 former national security, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals.

The signatories contend that without a clear federal framework, crypto-related activity could continue to move offshore into markets they describe as opaque—making it harder for US investigators to reach, monitor, and pursue financial crime.

Key CLARITY Act Provisions

The Blockchain Association’s letter emphasizes that the CLARITY Act would expand law enforcement and financial crime prevention capabilities across the digital asset ecosystem.

It highlights several enforcement-focused measures aimed at improving detection, coordination, and accountability. Among the key provisions described are strengthened anti-illicit finance obligations, including expanded Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and sanctions requirements.

The letter also mentions information sharing led by the Treasury with the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the private sector.

The group further argues that the bill would bolster safeguards for digital asset kiosks, citing requirements meant to improve oversight. Those include transaction monitoring and reporting duties, transaction limits, anti-fraud provisions, and dedicated law enforcement points of contact.

The Blockchain Association says these tools are particularly important for seniors and other Americans who are frequently targeted by scams, and it frames the measures as enforcement enhancements rather than reductions in regulation.

“These are not deregulatory measures,” the letter says, describing the proposal instead as a way to improve visibility, coordination, compliance, and accountability across digital asset markets.

The Road Ahead

To reinforce that message, the Blockchain Association is also set to host a virtual town hall on Thursday focused on how the legislation supports law enforcement and national security.

The event is expected to include participation from Senator Cynthia Lummis, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, and Patrick Witt, the White House Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets.

Amid the group’s call, momentum for the CLARITY Act has already been built. After the Agriculture Committee markup successfully approved its portion of the bill back in January, the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion also advanced. With those steps completed, a full Senate vote is expected this summer.

Even if the CLARITY Act clears the Senate, the legislation would still face a second major hurdle: approval by the House. The House has previously acted on a version of the bill, passing a different draft last fall.

As a result, the final Senate text may need additional reconciliation with the House’s earlier version before it can move forward.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap dropping below $2.2 trillion on Wednesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image created with OpenArt; chart from TradingView.com

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main purpose of the letter sent by the Blockchain Association to Senate leadership?

AThe main purpose of the letter is to urge the Senate to move forward and pass the long-awaited CLARITY Act, arguing that a clear federal framework is needed to prevent crypto-related activity from moving to opaque offshore markets and to enhance US law enforcement's ability to combat financial crime.

QAccording to the letter, what would be a key consequence of not passing the CLARITY Act?

AA key consequence would be that cryptocurrency-related activity could continue to move offshore into markets described as opaque, making it harder for US investigators to reach, monitor, and pursue financial crimes.

QHow does the Blockchain Association frame the enforcement measures in the CLARITY Act?

AThe association frames the measures, such as strengthened anti-illicit finance obligations and improved oversight for digital asset kiosks, as enforcement enhancements that improve visibility, coordination, compliance, and accountability, rather than as deregulatory measures.

QWhat upcoming event is the Blockchain Association hosting to support the CLARITY Act, and who is expected to participate?

AThe association is hosting a virtual town hall on Thursday focused on how the legislation supports law enforcement and national security. Expected participants include Senator Cynthia Lummis, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, and Patrick Witt, the White House Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors for Digital Assets.

QWhat are the next legislative hurdles for the CLARITY Act after a potential Senate vote?

AAfter a potential Senate vote this summer, the legislation would need approval by the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the final Senate text may require additional reconciliation with a different version of the bill that the House passed previously.

Похожее

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit23 мин. назад

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit23 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit30 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit30 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit43 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit43 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片