According to foreign media, the United States Encrypted Market Structures Bill, CLARTY Act, which has passed the House of Representatives and has been released by the Senate Banking Commission, is still on the Senate calendar and has not entered the final vote. According to the article, it is not the bipartisan division of the encryption regulatory framework itself, but the ethical controversy surrounding the Trump family encryption.

The bill was originally seen as one of the core legislation that the United States encryption industry had promoted for many years, with the aim of clarifying the division of regulation of digital assets at the federal level. Designed as a bill, more digital spot markets for large commodities would be dominated by commodity regulators, while assets sold as investment contracts would continue to be managed by securities regulators.

The bill has already passed critical procedures.

CLARTY Act had previously received cross-party support in the House of Representatives and had passed the Senate Banking Committee on 15 to 9 and subsequently entered the Senate legislative agenda. According to the article, in view of the usual legislative tempo, such bills should have continued to be advanced.

The encryption industry also continues to press. Hundreds of businesses and institutions have publicly called on the Senate to vote as soon as possible on the grounds that business and innovation activities may continue to flow to overseas markets if the United States continues to lack uniform rules.

The dispute has turned to the interest of the official.

According to the article, the deeper resistance today stems from ethical provisions rather than from market structure design itself. Democrat parliamentarians have called for the inclusion in the bill of a restriction on government officials benefiting from digital assets, which should cover the presidential level. The amendment had not previously been adopted by the Committee.

The focus of the controversy is directly related to the Trump family's encryption business. The article mentions that the interest map relates to World Liberty Financial, USD1 stabilization and TRUMP memes. Critics believe that conflicts of interest will be difficult to avoid if the bill promoting the legalization of trade does not at the same time regulate the conduct of public officials for profit.

For its part, the White House argued that ethical restrictions, if they were to be established, should be applied uniformly to all categories of officials and not separately to the President. As the parties were unable to agree on this point, the timetable that had been expected to be signed by July had been frustrated.

The Senate vote threshold is the key.

According to the article, Clarity Act was then faced with a problem of political coordination rather than a technical regulatory disagreement. If the Senate is to move the bill through, the 60-vote threshold will normally need to be met, which means that some Democrats outside the Republican Party will still need to be supported.

At a time when the window was narrow before the August recess, the bill ' s continued progress depended on the ability to produce an acceptable text on ethical provisions and on the maintenance of the basis of previous cross-party support. If these two conditions are not met, the bill may continue to stagnate even if multi-track procedures are completed.

According to the article, the impasse suggests that the greatest obstacle to current United States encryption legislation is not necessarily how to define tokens or allocate regulatory powers, but rather how to address conflicts of interest when the President ' s family itself is deeply involved in encryption.