Key facts
- Galaxy Digital's head of research revised the probability of the CLARITY Act passing in 2026 from 75% to 60%.
- A crowded Senate schedule, including a failed FISA reauthorization vote, is a primary obstacle.
- Unresolved issues include lawmaker ethics rules and illicit finance provisions.
- The CLARITY Act aims to define regulatory oversight between the SEC and CFTC for digital assets.
- Senator Cynthia Lummis had previously targeted July 4 for advancing market-structure legislation.
Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, has revised his probability estimate for the CLARITY Act, a significant piece of crypto market-structure legislation, passing in 2026 from 75% down to 60%. This adjustment is attributed to a Senate schedule that has become increasingly crowded with competing priorities. Following a failed reauthorization vote for FISA-related business, the upcoming Senate agenda leaves limited room for crypto legislation to advance. Thorn stated that the obstacle is no longer political will, as support for the bill has not diminished, but rather a lack of available time. Two key issues remain unresolved: lawmaker ethics rules and illicit finance provisions, which continue to complicate the path forward. The CLARITY Act's primary goal is to resolve the regulatory dispute between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regarding oversight of digital assets. Under the proposal, tokens classified as commodities would fall under CFTC jurisdiction, while those deemed securities would remain under the SEC's purview. This distinction is expected to reshape how exchanges operate and the compliance requirements for crypto projects. Supporters argue that this clarity would reduce regulatory uncertainty and prevent crypto development from moving overseas. Senator Cynthia Lummis had previously indicated July 4 as a target date for advancing market-structure legislation in the Senate. Thorn's revised outlook suggests a potentially longer timeline for comprehensive legislation, reflecting scheduling constraints rather than a shift in lawmakers' views on the bill itself.