With the CLARITY Act's window for passage before Congress's summer break narrowing, two of the people closest to shaping US crypto policy staked out their positions this week on what happens if the bill doesn't make it across the line. On August 1, 2026, Chris Dixon, head of a16z crypto, argued the US currently lacks a clear federal regulatory framework for digital assets — a gap he said leaves the market exposed to the kind of failure that brought down FTX, where the absence of defined rules around custody and exchange operations let risk build up largely unchecked until it collapsed.
Days later, CFTC Chair Mike Selig weighed in from the regulator's side, saying the agency will move forward with crypto rulemaking even if the CLARITY Act fails to pass. Selig had warned back in July that regulators would end up “writing all the rules” for crypto themselves if Congress couldn't get comprehensive legislation done — and his latest comments suggest the CFTC isn't waiting to find out.
Where the Bill Actually Stands
The CLARITY Act — formally the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — would split oversight of digital assets between the SEC and CFTC and establish rules for exchanges, token issuers and some DeFi platforms. It has cleared the House, and the Senate Banking Committee advanced it by a 15-9 vote during a formal markup in May. But as of early August, it still has no floor vote scheduled and no cloture motion filed, despite having been formally eligible for a vote since June 1. Provisions covering illicit finance, agriculture-related issues, and an ethics rule aimed at blocking senior government officials from profiting off the crypto industry remain unresolved. Missing the current window resets comprehensive market-structure legislation to the next Congress, pushing realistic enactment to mid-2027 at the earliest.
Two Paths to the Same Destination
Dixon's framing and Selig's are ultimately arguing for the same outcome from different directions: Dixon wants Congress to act because the current gap invites another FTX-style blowup, while Selig is signaling that the CFTC will fill that gap unilaterally if lawmakers don't. For the industry, a CFTC-led rulemaking process without statutory backing from Congress would likely be narrower and easier to unwind under a future administration than a durable law — meaning the practical stakes of whether the CLARITY Act passes this year, or slips to 2027, are higher than the procedural delay might suggest.
Related: Scammers Impersonate EU Regulators as MiCA Fallout Spreads
