What the Senate vote means for institutions and why the route to market may increasingly run through established infrastructure partners
Aquanow | With insights from Anna Trinh, Chief Compliance Officer
On 15 September 2026, the US Senate rejected cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The vote was 49 to 50, with 60 votes required. It was a procedural vote rather than a final vote on the bill, but it prevents the legislation from advancing on its current path and delays a comprehensive federal market structure framework. [1]
That delay matters. The House-passed bill sought to clarify how the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission would divide responsibility for digital assets. It also proposed registration and conduct requirements for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. In practical terms, it aimed to answer the questions institutions ask before committing capital or building products: what is the asset, which rules apply and which regulator is responsible? [2]
The result should not be read as the United States stepping away from digital assets. The debate has moved to the harder questions that arise when the technology meets the existing financial system, including the relationship between stablecoin products and bank deposits, conflicts of interest, governance and customer protection.
“The Senate vote pauses progress towards a statutory framework, but it also shows how central digital assets have become to US financial policy. The debate is no longer only about whether digital assets have a place in the financial system. It is about how digital assets should fit within banking and capital markets, and which safeguards institutions and customers should be able to rely on.”
Anna Trinh, Chief Compliance Officer, Aquanow
What the CLARITY Act Was Designed to Change
A digital asset company operating in the US can face different requirements depending on the asset, activity, customer and jurisdiction involved. The same product may raise questions under securities, commodities, banking, money-transmission and state law. The CLARITY Act attempted to create a common federal structure for that analysis.
The House-passed version would have:
· Defined key categories including digital commodities and investment contract assets.
· Allocated responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC for specified assets and activities.
· Created registration routes for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers.
· Established operating standards covering areas such as custody, disclosure, conflicts of interest and Bank Secrecy Act obligations.
The value of the proposal was not that every provision had been settled. It was that the bill attempted to replace case-by-case interpretation with a framework firms could use when designing products and controls. [2]
.png)
Regulatory Progress Can Continue Without New Legislation
Congress is not the only source of regulatory clarity. The GENIUS Act created a federal statutory framework for payment stablecoins in July 2025. The SEC and CFTC then signed a formal coordination agreement in March 2026 and established a Joint Harmonization Initiative covering product definitions, clearing, collateral, reporting, supervision and enforcement. [3] [4]
The agencies have also acted within their existing powers. Their March 2026 joint interpretation introduced a crypto asset taxonomy and explained how federal securities laws apply to certain assets and activities. Together with the coordination agreement, it shows that regulators can provide meaningful operational clarity while Congress continues working toward a permanent market structure framework. [5]
“Legislation can provide durable jurisdictional boundaries and close gaps that agencies cannot resolve alone. But regulatory clarity does not need to depend entirely on Congress. Coordinated rulemaking, practical registration guidance and clear treatment of custody and collateral can give institutions actionable pathways today.”
Anna Trinh, Chief Compliance Officer, Aquanow
What Institutions Need Now
For institutions, the issue is not whether greater clarity will eventually arrive, but whether there is enough certainty today to assess risk, design controls and commit capital. That requires predictable asset classifications, workable registration pathways and consistent expectations across regulators.
But not all regulatory clarity carries the same legal weight. A statute, final rule or Commission interpretation is different from staff guidance, a no-action position or a temporary exemption. Each can support progress, but institutions need to understand what is binding, what is conditional and what could change.
“Institutions need to distinguish between what is permitted under binding rules, what regulators have indicated they will not challenge and what remains unsettled. Those are different risk positions and should not be treated as interchangeable.”
Anna Trinh, Chief Compliance Officer, Aquanow
Regulatory Uncertainty Changes the Build or Partner Decision
An incomplete federal framework does not mean institutions have no route to market. Existing legislation, agency rules, interpretations, registrations and state requirements already define viable paths for some products. The more immediate question is how much of the operating model an institution should build itself while those requirements continue to evolve.
Building a full digital asset stack in-house requires decisions about licensing, customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, custody, liquidity, execution, reporting and ongoing supervision. Those are long-lived investments. If the regulatory perimeter changes, systems designed around earlier assumptions may need to be rebuilt.
A regulated infrastructure partner does not remove the institution's accountability or replace legal analysis. It can, however, reduce duplicated development by providing established integrations, controls and operating workflows that can be adapted as requirements change. This can be particularly valuable when an institution has a credible path to market today but the final federal framework is still taking shape.
“A partner cannot make regulatory uncertainty disappear, and the institution remains responsible for understanding its obligations. What an infrastructure partner can do is provide established systems, controls and processes that would otherwise need to be developed internally, while allowing an operating framework to adapt as requirements evolve.”
Anna Trinh, Chief Compliance Officer, Aquanow
A Practical Path Forward
Congress should return to market structure legislation and use the pause to resolve the issues that prevented the bill from advancing. The SEC and CFTC should continue using their existing powers to clarify classifications, registration, custody, collateral and reporting. Institutions, meanwhile, should avoid treating an unfinished federal framework as the absence of a framework.
The CLARITY Act vote leaves important work unfinished, but it does not leave the market directionless. Institutions can work from the rules and regulatory actions that already exist, identify where uncertainty remains and choose operating models capable of adapting. As the perimeter develops, partnership may become the most practical route to market, not as a substitute for compliance, but as a way to implement it without rebuilding the underlying infrastructure each time the rules change.
Official Sources
- US Senate Roll Call Vote 234 15 September 2026
- US Government Publishing Office H.R. 3633 House passed text
- US Government Publishing Office GENIUS Act Public Law 119 27
- CFTC SEC CFTC coordination MOU and Joint Harmonization Initiative 11 March 2026
- SEC Joint interpretation on certain crypto assets 17 March 2026
About Aquanow
Aquanow is a global digital asset infrastructure and liquidity provider supporting institutions across trading, payments and settlement. Aquanow provides institutional liquidity, real-time pricing and flexible execution capabilities across supported digital asset and fiat pairs. Through its platform and APIs, clients can access streaming prices and multiple execution options - including market, limit, RFQ, TWAP - providing greater price visibility and execution control as market conditions change.
