CLARITY 法案将于 9 月 15 日投票。加密货币行业一直在等待的一切都在两周内完成。

The cloture vote, the CPI print, the FOMC decision, and the SEC’s 24-hour trading roundtable all fall in the same 10-day window. The outcome will shape crypto regulation for the rest of the decade.

Summary The U.S. Senate returns from recess on September 14 and holds a cloture vote on the CLARITY Act at 2:15 p.m. ET on September 15, needing 60 votes to proceed to a full floor debate.

Polymarket odds for the bill becoming law in 2026 have collapsed from 82% in February to 16% as of September 6, while Galaxy Research pegs the probability at just 10%.

Three unresolved disputes block passage: ethics rules targeting President Trump’s $1.4 billion in crypto income, DeFi developer liability under Section 604, and a stablecoin yield provision that threatens $1.35 billion in annual Coinbase USDC rewards revenue.

The CPI report on September 11, the FOMC rate decision on September 16, and the SEC’s 24-hour trading roundtable on September 17 all land in the same compressed window, creating a volatility corridor unlike anything crypto has faced in 2026.

If the bill fails, regulation defaults to a patchwork of agency rulemaking that can be reversed by any future administration, leaving the industry without a durable federal framework until at least 2028.

The United States Senate has 14 working days left in its legislative calendar before midterm campaigning shuts down the floor. Fourteen days to pass or kill the most ambitious piece of crypto legislation ever written. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a 309-page bill that would draw permanent jurisdictional lines between the SEC and the CFTC, faces its make-or-break procedural vote on September 15. And it does not face that vote alone. A CPI inflation report, a Federal Reserve rate decision, and an SEC roundtable on 24-hour trading all land in the same 10-day stretch, stacking catalysts in a way that makes the first half of September the most consequential period for digital assets since Bitcoin’s spot ETF approvals in January 2024.

The stakes are not abstract. If the CLARITY Act clears cloture, it opens the door to a unified regulatory framework that sorts every digital asset into one of three categories, securities, digital commodities, or stablecoins, and assigns each to a specific federal regulator. If it does not clear cloture, the crypto industry reverts to a regulatory patchwork held together by enforcement actions and agency guidance that any successor administration can undo with a memo.

This is the window. Two weeks. Everything in it matters.

What the CLARITY Act actually does

The bill is 309 pages of statutory text divided into six titles, and it does something no previous crypto legislation has managed: it draws a clear line between the SEC and the CFTC.

Under the CLARITY Act, a digital asset is classified as either a security, a digital commodity, or a stablecoin. The classification depends on decentralization. If a blockchain network’s insiders control less than 20% of the circulating supply and governance, the token qualifies as a digital commodity and falls under CFTC jurisdiction. If insiders retain more than 20%, the token is treated as a security and stays under SEC oversight. Stablecoins are carved out entirely and governed by the GENIUS Act framework signed into law in July 2025.

The practical effect is enormous. Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, and 12 other major tokens would be formally classified as digital commodities. Spot trading platforms for those assets would register with the CFTC, not the SEC. Initial token offerings that fail the decentralization threshold would remain SEC-regulated, preserving investor protections for new launches while freeing mature networks from securities law constraints that were never designed for them.

JUST IN: Clarity Act passes House 294-134 with bipartisan support and Trump backing as Lummis confirms stablecoin talks are 99% resolved and Senate vote is imminent https://t.co/NFsjGXXeK9 pic.twitter.com/EG5AXDnLJZ — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) April 4, 2026

The bill also creates a DeFi framework under Section 604. Non-custodial software developers who write open-source code and never take custody of user funds would be exempt from money-transmitter registration and Bank Secrecy Act obligations. The Lummis-Grassley amendment preserves criminal liability for anyone who “knowingly” facilitates illicit transactions, drawing a line between publishing code and operating an illicit service.

The bill also imposes registration requirements and operational standards for digital asset intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and dealers. Every platform that lists a digital commodity would need to register with the CFTC, maintain customer asset segregation, and comply with anti-money-laundering rules. The framework is modeled on existing commodity market regulation, which means the CFTC does not have to build from scratch. It can extend proven systems to a new asset class.

For an industry that has spent the last three years navigating regulation-by-enforcement, this is not incremental. It is structural. And the timing matters. The SEC and CFTC jointly published a 68-page interpretive release in March 2026 that sorted crypto assets into five categories and designated 16 major tokens as digital commodities. That release was always meant to be a bridge to legislation. Without the CLARITY Act, the bridge leads nowhere.

The three fights that could kill the bill

Three disputes have blocked the CLARITY Act for months. None of them are about the core market-structure framework. All of them are about politics.

The ethics provision. Seven Democratic senators have said the current draft “falls short” on ethics, consumer protection, and illicit finance rules. The core demand: an enforceable ban on presidents and senior government officials issuing or profiting from crypto. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a longtime crypto-market-structure negotiator, said on August 24 that she will not support the legislation without that ban. The target is obvious. President Trump has earned an estimated $1.4 billion in crypto income, and Democrats want a firewall between the Oval Office and the token market.

Senator Cynthia Lummis pushed back, arguing that Trump has agreed to implement ethics standards banning all federal officials from certain crypto activity. But the gap between “agreed to implement” and “written into enforceable statute” is exactly where the negotiation has stalled.

DeFi developer liability. Section 604’s exemption for non-custodial developers is one of the bill’s most consequential provisions, and one of its most controversial. Critics argue it creates a loophole for money laundering. Supporters argue it is the only way to keep DeFi development in the United States. The Blockchain Association sent a letter cosigned by 160 former national security and law enforcement officials supporting the exemption, calling it “narrowly tailored” and consistent with existing legal precedent for software publishers.

Stablecoin yield. The bill bans stablecoin yield that functions like bank deposit interest but permits rewards tied to transactions, payments, and liquidity provision. This distinction matters because Coinbase generates roughly $1.35 billion annually from USDC rewards programs that the provision would legalize. Traditional banks, which lobbied aggressively against the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework, see this as crypto eating their deposit business under a different label. The banking lobby wants the yield ban extended to exchanges and affiliates, which would gut Coinbase’s revenue model.

Each of these fights has its own constituency, its own lobbying apparatus, and its own set of senators who have drawn lines in the sand. The ethics provision is personal, tied to a sitting president’s finances. The DeFi exemption is ideological, touching the boundary between software freedom and financial regulation. The stablecoin yield fight is economic, pitting Silicon Valley against Wall Street in a battle over $1.35 billion in annual revenue.

Any one of these fights could bleed enough Democratic votes to kill cloture. Together, they explain why Polymarket odds sit at 16%.

The cloture math

Cloture requires 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a full Senate vote. Republicans hold 53 seats. That means supporters need at least seven Democrats or independents.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill 15-9 in May, with all 13 Republicans joined by two Democrats. But both Democrats said their committee votes did not guarantee floor support without progress on the ethics provision. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has called the bill “a bill written by the crypto industry for the crypto industry” and declared it “dead on arrival,” is leading the opposition.

The math is brutal. Even if every Republican votes yes, and that is not guaranteed given some senators’ concerns about the DeFi exemption, supporters need seven crossover votes from a caucus whose most vocal members have spent months publicly opposing the bill.

JUST IN: Senator Lummis says the Clarity Act is not just a crypto bill, it’s a decision about whether America leads the next financial system or watches from the sidelines https://t.co/NFsjGXXeK9 pic.twitter.com/7JXPYvHp5Q — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) June 1, 2026

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion on August 8, the last day before the August recess, specifically to lock in the September 15 date. The vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. ET, less than 24 hours after senators return to Washington. That timing is deliberate. Thune wants to force the vote before opponents can organize amendments or procedural delays.

“I personally am a bit pessimistic about the Clarity Act being passed,” John Darsie, CEO of SALT, told CNBC at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium in August. “Leading into the midterms, you do not often pass legislation of this magnitude.”

He is right about history. He may be wrong about this particular moment. The crypto industry has never had a bill this far along the legislative pipeline. The House passed it 294 to 134, a margin that would be extraordinary for any financial regulation bill, let alone one touching digital assets. The Senate Banking Committee advanced it 15 to 9 with bipartisan support. No previous crypto bill has cleared both of those hurdles. The GENIUS Act, the stablecoin bill signed into law in July 2025, is the only comparable precedent, and it was narrower in scope by an order of magnitude.

The question is not whether the CLARITY Act has support. It does. The question is whether that support translates into 60 floor votes in a chamber that treats 60 as a near-impossible threshold for anything controversial.

Polymarket and Galaxy: reading the odds

The prediction markets tell a stark story. Polymarket’s CLARITY Act contract has crashed from 82% in February to 16% as of September 6, with over $14 million traded on the outcome. Galaxy Research, which tracks legislative probabilities with institutional rigor, has dropped its estimate even further, to 10%.

You might also like: The 3 fights that decide the CLARITY Act

Galaxy’s probability peaked at 75% after the Senate Banking Committee markup in May, then declined steadily: 60% in early June, 50% by late June, 30% after the combined legislative text dropped on July 24, and 10% in mid-August when the Senate left for recess without voting.

But prediction markets measure the probability of the bill becoming signed law in 2026, not the probability of clearing cloture on September 15. Those are different questions. If the bill clears cloture, it still needs a full floor vote, a conference committee to reconcile House and Senate versions, another vote in both chambers, and a presidential signature. Each step carries its own risk. The low odds reflect the full gauntlet, not just the first hurdle.

Here is what the odds do not capture: the political cost of failure. If the CLARITY Act dies, crypto regulation defaults to agency rulemaking. The SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on August 19, creating an offering framework that does not require congressional action. The CFTC is writing its own rules regardless of the bill. These agency rules can be reversed by any future administration, reproducing the regulatory instability the bill was drafted to end.