Bitcoin Keeps Key Protections Despite CLARITY Act Setback

Bitcoin could very well continue its trajectory despite the blocking of the Clarity Act in the Senate. After the failure of the closure procedure, the probabilities of the bill’s adoption this year dropped from 15% to 5% on Polymarket. Bitcoin therefore retreated towards 75,000 dollars at the same time, without any direct link being established between the two movements. A paradox emerges behind this political setback. While Washington is still trying to clarify the crypto market rules, bitcoin already has many major regulatory achievements in the United States.

Bitcoin already benefits from an established regulatory status

The CLARITY Act bill must establish federal rules for the crypto market, allocate jurisdiction over different tokens between the SEC and the CFTC, and specify authorized activities for banking institutions and exchanges. However, in the United States, bitcoin is already considered a commodity, while Bitcoin ETFs were approved in January 2024. Last March, the SEC and the CFTC also confirmed its status as a commodity.

From then on, many figures in the sector consider that its adoption is not a necessary condition for BTC’s success. Michael Saylor clarifies this position: “Bitcoin does not need CLARITY. America does”, before adding: “Bitcoin will succeed, with or without legislation”.

Arthur Hayes also points out that “Bitcoin hasn’t needed the Clarity Act from 2009 to today, and it won’t need it in the future either”. Jake Chervinsky believes that “the crypto ecosystem will do very well without the Clarity Act,” estimating that the SEC and CFTC already have the necessary teams and authority.

The main arguments put forward to downplay the immediate impact of the CLARITY Act on bitcoin are therefore the following :

• Bitcoin already has commodity status with U.S. regulators ;
• Bitcoin ETFs have been authorized since January 2024, already offering regulated access to BTC ;
• The SEC and CFTC confirmed this status in March 2026 ;
• The CLARITY Act does not mention bitcoin directly, despite its ambition to regulate the crypto market ;
• BTC’s price has not systematically followed the adoption probabilities of the text this year, which suggests not presenting it as a mechanical price driver.

Banking rules could weigh more heavily on demand

This debate changes nature when it moves toward the banking sector. The CLARITY Act could enshrine their ability in law to hold bitcoins for their customers and offer certain credit, payment, or derivatives services. However, it would not immediately remove one of the main obstacles to direct exposure of financial institutions: capital requirements.

According to the Basel global standard, a bank must hold at least one million dollars of capital to cover one million dollars in bitcoin. This rule has not been adopted by the United States. Moreover, their regulators have not finalized their own requirements either.

A favorable development in this area would also have more influence on institutional demand for BTC than the CLARITY Act. Even if adopted this year, the bill would have no immediate effects. Most of its provisions could only take effect 360 days after its enactment, postponing much of the practical changes until the end of 2027.

The scope of the text mainly plays out over the long term

The interest of the CLARITY Act may be less spectacular in the short term than defensive in the long term. By turning certain regulatory achievements into legislative provisions, it could make their challenge more difficult if the administration resulting from the November 2028 presidential election adopts a less favorable policy towards bitcoin. The text would also protect Bitcoin developers, mining companies, and dormant BTC held in self-custody.

Its scope would also go beyond bitcoin. Assets like XRP could benefit more from a stabilized regulatory framework, with the possibility that some capital might then flow towards altcoins rather than BTC. After the vote failure, Willy Woo observed a different dynamic between the American and offshore markets: “I see Americans selling following the failure of the Clarity Act (on Coinbase). Meanwhile, the offshore market, more dominant globally, keeps accumulating (on Binance). Bullish”.

This divergence sums up the limitation of an exclusively American reading of the issue. Bitcoin remains a global asset. Washington can secure its regulatory environment, but the CLARITY Act alone is neither the condition nor the guarantee of a new rise.