According to the external review, the CLARITY Act, promoted by the United States Congress, should not be measured in terms of price reactions alone. According to the article, the Act has a more direct role in providing an enforceable federal framework for institutional investors, compliance teams and trustees, thus affecting access to the digital asset market.

It's not the price, it's the agency's ability to sign.

According to the article, over the past few years many agencies have not been interested in configuring digital assets, but have been stuck in compliance and legal clearance. For the institutions entrusted with the management of the funds, the main concern of the Investments Committee was not market heat, but whether the relevant holdout could be established under regulatory review.

The comment was made that it was precisely this obstacle that the CLARITY Act was trying to address. The focus of the bill is not on a single asset price, but on how digital assets are classified, by whom, and which institutions can legally provide hosting and trading services. If these issues are incorporated into federal law, it will be easier for compliance and legal officers to approve the relevant configuration.

  • About three quarters of the institutions interviewed plan to increase the number of asset allocations this year.
  • 66% of respondents identified regulatory uncertainty as a major concern
  • Sixty-five percent of respondents said that the rules would increase the configuration when they became clearer

The bill doesn't change how bitcoin works.

According to the article, a decentrized network such as Bitcoin and Letcoin does not depend on the new Act for its continued operation. They have been operating for more than a decade without a central distributor and board of directors.

According to the commentary, the real change in the Act is not the bottom-up network, but the intermediary that provides services around these assets. It would be clearer if the bill were to land, the regulatory division of labour for digital goods, the eligibility criteria for digital asset trustees, and the path to bank registration for hosting and brokering services.

In this framework, the legal boundaries of entry into the market by the regulated bodies are clearer. According to the article, this is more important for wealth management agencies, corporate financial teams and hosting service providers, who await a clear basis, because what they need is a system that can be implemented on the ground, rather than a principled statement.

September 15th.

The article mentions that, at the time of writing, the CLARITY Act had been placed on the Senate ' s voting schedule on 15 September, after the legislative process had been affected by the August recess. The comment was made that even if the vote continued to be postponed, the trend towards the use of digital assets by agencies would not be reversed, but that the pace of advancement on the United States mainland could slow.

The article stated that if Washington failed to give clear rules, funds and talent would continue to flow to clearer jurisdictions. It is mentioned that the European Union's MiCA framework and the Dubai VARA system already provide a clearer operational environment for related operations.

The commentary concludes that CLARITY Act is more like an accelerator than a “lifeline” necessary for the survival of the industry. It could not decide whether a digital asset would be used by the agency, but it would affect whether the process would take place more in the United States and which compliance teams, finance managers and builders would be willing to operate on the ground.