CFTC moves to draft crypto rules as Senate stalls on CLARITY Act
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is preparing to write crypto market rules itself if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act, the market-structure bill that would divide oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC. CFTC Chair Michael S. Selig has directed staff to begin developing crypto market-structure rules, a move that signals the agency most likely to oversee much of the crypto industry is no longer willing to wait for legislators to settle the question.
The development matters because the CLARITY Act, formally the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, represents one of the clearest attempts yet to define how crypto is regulated in the United States. The bill would assign most crypto-market oversight to the CFTC while preserving some authority for the SEC. But it has stalled in the Senate and faces a high procedural hurdle to advance, prompting the CFTC to prepare a regulatory path that could exist with or without new legislation.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune moved the bill forward procedurally by filing a motion to proceed, and a Senate vote was set for 2:15 p.m. ET on Tuesday, September 15. Whether that vote succeeds will determine whether the legislative route survives, or whether Selig’s CFTC becomes the primary author of America’s crypto rulebook.
What the CLARITY Act would actually do
The bill’s substance explains why it has been watched so closely by exchanges, issuers and institutional investors. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 is designed to establish a federal framework for digital assets by drawing a clean jurisdictional line between the SEC and the CFTC. Under the bill, most digital assets would be classified as commodities, placing the bulk of crypto-market supervision with the CFTC, the agency that already oversees futures and derivatives markets.
The legislation also contains provisions aimed at decentralised finance. It would protect some DeFi developers from liability, an attempt to draw a distinction between those who build protocols and those who operate trading venues or take custody of customer funds. On stablecoins, the bill would limit passive yield while allowing activity-based rewards, a carve-out that would let programmes rewarding genuine user engagement continue while restricting yield generated simply from holding a token.
The Senate text has grown considerably during its passage. After an updated merge of committee drafts, the bill now runs to 616 pages, a size that reflects both the complexity of the jurisdictional questions involved and the number of compromises stitched together to keep bipartisan support intact.
For a market that has spent years operating under regulatory ambiguity, with the SEC and CFTC trading jurisdictional arguments while firms received enforcement actions rather than rulebooks, the bill’s detail matters. Classifying most digital assets as commodities would give exchanges a clearer registration path and give token issuers a clearer sense of when securities law applies. The DeFi protections and stablecoin yield limits, meanwhile, preview where compromise landed after months of negotiation between the committees.
For broader context on how regulators have approached the asset class, see our regulation coverage.
The numbers behind the Senate stall
The timeline of the bill’s slow progress through the Senate explains the CFTC’s decision to prepare its own rules. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill by a 15-9 bipartisan vote on May 14, 2026, a margin that suggested cross-aisle support existed at committee level. But the bill then lost momentum as lawmakers headed into the August recess without completing a procedural vote.
The arithmetic is the problem. According to Decrypt, the Senate still needed roughly six Democratic votes to clear the chamber’s 60-vote threshold, the supermajority required to overcome a filibuster and move to final passage. A 15-9 committee vote does not translate into 60 floor votes, and the recess drained whatever urgency existed before it.
Thune’s filing of a motion to proceed was the procedural step needed to bring the bill back to the floor, and the vote set for 2:15 p.m. ET on Tuesday, September 15, will test whether the six Democratic votes materialise. If they do not, the bill returns to a legislative limbo that has already consumed months, and attention shifts squarely to the CFTC.
This is a familiar pattern for crypto legislation in Washington. Market-structure bills have repeatedly passed one chamber or cleared committee only to stall against the Senate’s 60-vote requirement, where a minority can hold legislation indefinitely. The CLARITY Act has travelled further than most, but the September 15 vote is the hinge on which its fate turns.
Why a CFTC rulebook changes the calculus
The headline framing of the story captures the practical significance: CFTC Will Give Crypto Clarity If Congress Won’t. Even if Congress delays or fails entirely, the regulator most likely to oversee much of crypto is already preparing to act, and that could shape industry rules without waiting for legislation.
Selig’s direction to staff to begin developing crypto market-structure rules gives the agency a parallel track. If the CLARITY Act passes, the CFTC would inherit primary oversight of most digital asset markets and would need to write the implementing rules anyway. If the bill fails, the agency could still use its existing authority over commodities and derivatives markets to build a framework for spot and related crypto markets, though a regulator acting alone faces legal limits that legislation would not.
For market participants, the implications cut in several directions. Exchanges and trading firms that have favoured CFTC jurisdiction over SEC enforcement would welcome a rulebook written by the commodities regulator, which has historically taken a lighter-touch, registration-based approach compared with the SEC’s disclosure-heavy regime. Stablecoin issuers, however, face the bill’s restriction on passive yield, which could force changes to reward programmes that pay holders simply for holding. DeFi developers stand to gain the most explicit protection yet written into federal law, if the provision survives the floor vote and any conference with the House.
There is also a timing question. Agency rulemaking takes months, typically involving proposed rules, public comment periods and final adoption, and a rulemaking pursued without statutory backing invites legal challenge from parties who argue the CFTC has overstepped its mandate. That risk cuts both ways: it makes the legislative route cleaner, but it also means a failed Senate vote would not end the process, merely move it to a slower and more contested venue.
For readers tracking how the asset class trades through regulatory news, our Bitcoin coverage follows the market’s reaction to Washington developments.
Analysis: the regulator is no longer waiting
The strategic picture is straightforward. The CFTC has concluded that the cost of continued ambiguity exceeds the risk of acting first. By directing staff to develop market-structure rules before the Senate votes, Selig has signalled to both lawmakers and the industry that clarity is coming from the agency regardless, which may paradoxically reduce congressional urgency to pass the bill while also giving supporters of the legislation a talking point: a statutory framework is more durable than agency rules that a future administration could rewrite.
The September 15 vote remains the immediate event to watch. Six Democratic votes short of the 60-vote threshold, the bill’s fate depends on whether floor debate and amendment offers can close the gap. If it fails, expect the CFTC’s rulemaking to accelerate from contingency to primary plan, and expect the SEC to defend whatever residual authority the commodities regulator’s approach leaves unaddressed. Either way, the era in which US crypto firms could claim no regulator had jurisdiction over them is drawing to a close. The only question left is who writes the rules, and how soon.
