US crypto agencies set the pace as the CLARITY Act stalls

By Nathan Brooks

The CFTC submitted a crypto market regulatory plan for White House review on Sept. 17, shortly after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, according to Cointelegraph.

Ma, 1inch's deputy general counsel, expects federal agencies—not Congress—to lead the next phase of US crypto rulemaking. Engagement among the SEC, CFTC and US Treasury is increasing, but she does not treat that engagement as a substitute for statutes that survive an election.

Her distinction is institutional: agencies can use existing authority to issue proposals, staff guidance and enforcement priorities faster than Congress can pass law, yet future administrations can recalibrate those priorities. That makes agency action useful for compliance planning, but difficult to underwrite over a long investment horizon.

Agency action accelerates before the midterms

Control of Congress is at stake in the midterms, which could alter the political odds for the CLARITY Act. The bill would establish a clearer statutory foundation for parts of the crypto market. Ma said the election may reshape the legislative route, while the more immediate movement is likely to come from the SEC, CFTC and Treasury.

Congress may still need time to build consensus and pass a law after prior setbacks. For market participants, the timetable now splits between two systems: legislative action that offers durability, and agency action that can move faster but remains exposed to changes in leadership or legal interpretation.

Ma stated: “The long-term goal, of course, remains a statute that cannot be reversed every time a government changes.”

Why institutional capital is waiting

Michael Ho, co-founder of D3 and part of the team behind Doma Protocol, linked the stalled market-structure bill to investor decisions. He said uncertainty over the policy framework is delaying serious capital, particularly in tokenized real-world assets, because institutional investors need confidence that classification and compliance treatment will endure.

Ho framed the problem as durability rather than short-term ambiguity. Under guidance that “a future administration can reverse,” serious capital remains on the sidelines, he said. He also argued that clear rules written into law would unlock broader institutional participation in tokenized real-world assets.

Regulatory engagement still has operating value. Dialogue with regulators can clarify expectations and reduce compliance guesswork, and it gives projects a way to test interpretations before committing resources. But engagement, guidance and proposals do not carry the same permanence as legislation.

What the SEC and CFTC have done

Recent agency steps show why the distinction matters. Cointelegraph reported the following:

• August: The SEC proposed a framework for crypto fundraising, including exemptions for certain token offerings and a safe harbor aimed at reducing the risk that an offering would be treated as an investment contract.
• September: The SEC updated staff guidance on how regulators may view token buybacks, crypto networks and staking receipt tokens.
• Sept. 17: The CFTC submitted a crypto market regulatory plan for White House review, shortly after the Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act.

Together, these moves show agencies filling statutory gaps while Congress stalls. They may shape near-term compliance planning even if they do not settle durable asset classification or compliance obligations.

What does this change for tokenization businesses?

Tokenization businesses face a higher bar than many crypto-native applications because their use cases intersect with regulated finance, securities and custody. Investors want predictable answers on how assets will be classified and how compliance obligations will be defined, not merely a regulator's position for the current policy cycle.

For operators, agency engagement can narrow near-term questions, especially around fundraising, token activity and network treatment. It cannot remove the need to model political risk, revise compliance systems when guidance changes or delay a launch until the legal basis for long-lived assets is settled.

The practical test is whether agencies produce standards specific enough for institutions to assess and underwrite. A proposal can establish a legal position or inform product design; durable law determines whether large pools of capital can commit beyond one election cycle.

The next checkpoint is the midterm outcome. If congressional momentum for the CLARITY Act does not return, the SEC, CFTC and Treasury will continue to set the practical pace through proposals, staff guidance and regulatory plans. Institutions will judge those steps by whether they become predictable, lasting rules or remain policy signals that shift with the political cycle.