Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
CFD
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
CFD
Stock CFD Derivatives
US Stocks
Access real US stocks and ETFs
HK Stocks
Trade quality Hong Kong-listed stocks
Korean Stocks
SK Hynix
Real Korean stocks and top assets
Stock Futures
High leverage, 24/7 trading
Tokenized Stocks
Backed by real stock assets
IPO Access
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
GUSD
3.8%
Mint GUSD for Treasury RWA yields
Stocks Activities
Trade Popular Stocks and Unlock Generous Airdrops
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Promotions
AI
Gate AI
Your all-in-one conversational AI partner
Gate AI Bot
Use Gate AI directly in your social App
GateClaw
Gate Blue Lobster, ready to go
Gate for AI Agent
AI infrastructure, Gate MCP, Skills, and CLI
Gate Skills Hub
10K+ Skills
From office tasks to trading, the all-in-one skill hub makes AI even more useful.
#特朗普呼吁尽快通过Clarity法案 Trump puts the name of a deceased senator on the fast track for the “Clarity Act”
First, correct one fact: this is not “support,” but mourning
On July 13, Trump posted on Truth Social, calling on the Senate to pass the “Clarity Act” (Clarity Act). But the real context behind this post is completely different from “supporting living senators”—Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died last Saturday (July 11) at age 71. In essence, Trump’s post is legislative pressure dressed up as mourning: “To honor Sen. Lindsey Graham, a steadfast supporter, the U.S. Senate should pass the ‘Clarity Act.’”
🇨🇳 and many other countries want total control over this major financial event and the AI space—though we are currently leading in AI, they are desperately trying to catch up. Don’t let Beijing win in any direction!”
Notably, according to Unchained, Graham is actually not the key negotiator behind the “Clarity Act”—he is neither on the Senate Banking Committee nor the Agriculture Committee, and this year he has not voted on any push for the bill. The only connection is that last year he supported the “GENIUS Act” (stablecoin legislation). Using the name of a deceased senator who is not a core driver to “pressure votes” looks more like a precise political narrative packaging.
What happened on July 17: a hearing, not a vote
Many self-media outlets have framed July 17 as a “key voting day,” which is a misread.
The real setup is: the House Financial Services Committee held an “off-site hearing” (field hearing) in New York, focusing on innovation and market structure. The purpose was to generate renewed public momentum for the bill already passed by the House in July 2025, not any form of voting. The battlefield that truly determines the bill’s fate has always been in the Senate. On May 14, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill with 15 yeas and 9 nays. Two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, voted in favor, but both also made it clear that this does not equal a commitment to a final floor vote. With Republicans holding about 53 seats in the Senate, to break the filibuster threshold, it would still need about 7 more Democratic votes—this is the real suspense behind the hearing.
Three deadlocks holding it up
There are reasons the bill has stalled. According to CryptoTimes, three major disagreements are still unresolved: first, an ethical review dispute over officials’ crypto asset holdings—this controversy has been further amplified by the existence of crypto businesses connected to the Trump family; second, the provisions of “Section 604” on developer responsibility exemptions, with internal divisions within the enforcement system; third, a tug-of-war over the stablecoin yield provisions—an accommodation proposal Tillis and Alsobrooks are negotiating would ban “bank deposit interest”-type products, but keep some transaction-based incentive designs.
Galaxy Research analyst Alex Thorn lowered the probability of the bill passing within 2026 from 75% to 60% as early as June 5, citing that the Senate calendar has been crowded out by the ongoing fight over FISA reauthorization and the continued debate over anti-weaponization funds. And according to Coinpedia, citing Polymarket data, the market’s implied probability of passage within the year has already dropped to 43%.
Congress’s window is extremely limited—only a few weeks remain before the August recess. Sen. Lummis has already said: if they can’t get it done this year, the next real legislative opportunity may have to wait until 2030.
Questions facing the market
When “Don’t let 🇨🇳 win” becomes a vote-pressure catchphrase, and when the name of a deceased senator who isn’t a core driver is used to manufacture urgency, what should really be asked may be this: if even the crypto asset holdings of the family of the president can become a stumbling block for an ethics review, is this “ensuring the dual leadership of the U.S. in finance and AI” narrative truly a strategic consensus—or just another legislative race being swept up by the political cycle? After July 17, the answer may become clearer.
First, let’s correct one fact: this is not “support,” it’s mourning
On July 13, Trump posted on Truth Social calling on the Senate to pass the “Clarity Act.” But the real background of this post—and the idea that it “supports sitting senators”—are two completely different things. Senator Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died last Saturday (July 11) at the age of 71. In essence, Trump’s post is legislative pressure dressed up as mourning: “In memory of steadfast supporter Senator Lindsey Graham, the U.S. Senate should pass the ‘Clarity Act.’”
🇨🇳 and many other countries want to completely control this major financial event and the AI space. We are currently leading in AI, but they are scrambling to catch up. Don’t let Beijing win in any direction!”
Notably, according to Unchained, Graham is actually not the core negotiator behind the “Clarity Act.” He is neither on the Senate Banking Committee nor the Agriculture Committee, and this year he has not cast any vote to advance the bill. The only connection is that he supported the “GENIUS Act” last year (stablecoin legislation). Using a deceased senator who wasn’t a core driver to “rush a vote” is more like a precise packaging of political narrative.
What happens on July 17: a hearing, not a vote
Many self-media outlets describe July 17 as the “key voting day,” which is a misreading.
The real setup is this: the House Financial Services Committee will hold an “overseas hearing” (field hearing) in New York, with the focus on innovation and market structure. The purpose is to generate new public momentum for a bill that already passed the House in July 2025—not any form of voting. The battlefield that truly determines the bill’s fate has always been in the Senate. On May 14, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill with 15 yeas and 9 nays. Two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, voted in favor, but both clearly stated that this does not equal a commitment to a final floor vote. With roughly 53 Senate seats in the Republican camp, to break the filibuster threshold, Republicans still need to win about 7 Democratic votes—this is the real uncertainty behind the hearing.
Three stuck knots
The bill isn’t stalled without reason. According to CryptoTimes, three major disagreements remain unresolved: first, an ethical review controversy over officials’ cryptocurrency asset holdings—this debate has been further amplified by the existence of crypto businesses tied to the Trump family; second, the “Section 604” provisions on developer responsibility exemptions, with opinions split within the enforcement system; third, the tug-of-war over stablecoin yield provisions—the compromise方案 being negotiated between Senator Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks would ban “bank-deposit-interest”-type products, but keep some incentive designs based on trading activity.
Galaxy Research analyst Alex Thorn had already cut the probability of passage of the bill by 2026 from 75% to 60% on June 5, citing that the Senate agenda has been crowded out by the ongoing fight over FISA reauthorization and the continued debate over deweaponization funding; and according to Coinpedia citing Polymarket data, the market-implied probability of passage within the year has already fallen to 43%.
Congress has an extremely limited window—only a few weeks remain before the August recess. Senator Lummis has already warned: if they can’t get it done this year, the next real legislative opportunity may not come until 2030.
A question for the market
When “Don’t let 🇨🇳 win” becomes vote-rushing rhetoric, and when the name of a deceased senator who isn’t even a core driver is used to create urgency, what should really be asked may be this: if even the crypto assets holdings of the president’s own family become obstacles for ethical review, is the narrative of “ensuring U.S. dual leadership in finance and AI” a genuine strategic consensus—or just another legislative race swept up by the political cycle? After July 17, the answer may become clearer.