The 616-page CLARITY Act: the biggest highlight isn’t regulation—it’s “Trump voluntarily complying”

You think this is a regulatory bill? No—this is a political con.

On July 22, Republican senators threw down a major “bombshell”: the full 616-page text of the CLARITY Act was officially released. As early as next week, the Senate will vote on it in full.

But once you read through the 616 pages, the most explosive part isn’t the compliance framework, isn’t the regulatory boundaries—

It’s a casually worded line:

“This is the standard for Trump’s voluntary compliance, not something Congress imposes.”

Said directly by Senator Lummis.

What does it mean?

Translation: Trump is voluntarily putting chains on himself.

First, look at exactly what this ethics clause says:

Barring the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges, and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office

But they can invest—note this distinction; you’ll need it later

Enforcement is handled by the Department of Justice

Automatically expires at noon on January 20, 2029

Do you understand what this timing point is?

January 20, 2029—right on the inauguration day of the next president.

This isn’t a coincidence. It’s the Republicans saying: “This ban only applies to the current officeholder. The next one? We’ll see then.”

Now, let’s break down the genius of this political performance.

First layer: handing Trump a knife.

How big is the Trump family’s crypto business? Reports say that in the first year after Trump returned to the White House, crypto-related revenue was about $1.2 billion. TRUMP coin, MELANIA coin, World Liberty Financial—these political Meme coins have made him a fortune.

Now Trump says: “I’ll voluntarily comply. I won’t issue anything.”

What does that mean?

He crushes the high ground of morality under his feet, then turns around and tells Democrats, “I did it—what about you?”

Second layer: digging a pit for the Democrats.

The Democrats have been calling for ethics clauses. Now the Republicans put the clause into the bill, and Trump agrees too.

So what will the Democrats do?

Oppose?—“Weren’t you asking for ethics? You gave it to us and we don’t want it?” Support?—“Then you have to comply as well, and the enforcement power is in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

They’re stuck either way.

Third layer: ban issuance, not investment—the real killing move.

The clause says “ban issuing,” but it doesn’t say “ban investing.”

So what does that mean?

Political figures can’t issue coins to cash in on the crypto space anymore, but they can still participate in the industry through investments and share in the upside.

This isn’t “regulation.” This is “co-opting.”

How did Democrats respond?

Seven Democratic senators rejected it immediately.

Maryland Senator Alsobrooks went straight at it, saying, “Having the Department of Justice enforce the ethics clause is an unserious proposal.” The harsher version is—“wild and unserious and stone-cold crazy.”

Translation: “You want Trump’s Department of Justice to supervise Trump? That’s not a joke, right?”

What they want is shared enforcement power with the state attorneys general.

But would Republicans agree? Impossible—because once state attorneys general get involved, red states and blue states will do their own thing, and the clause becomes effectively null.

Polymarket’s data makes it clear.

On July 13, the probability of the bill passing once fell to a historic low of 24%.

The moment news came out that Trump agreed to the ethics clause, the probability surged to **43%**.

But after Democrats opposed, it dropped again to **37%-40%**.

The market is telling you with real money: it isn’t that simple.

What does it mean for the crypto industry?

Short term: If the bill passes, the era of presidents issuing coins will officially end. Political Meme coins like TRUMP and MELANIA will become history.

Long term: Compliance moves forward, but political figures get stuck with “ban issuing, not investing”—they can’t monetize using personal IP, but they can use wallets to vote.

What does that mean?

It means politicians will shift from “issuing coins to cut retail’s liquidity” to “buying compliantly and waiting for appreciation.”

The former is a toxic tumor that destroys industry credibility; the latter is a force that pushes the industry to evolve.

“Trump isn’t being regulated—he’s voluntarily putting the chains on himself, then asking the Democrats: are you brave enough?”

“Crypto is being ‘co-opted’—the cost is that political figures can no longer use it as a personal-IP monetization tool.”

Do you think the CLARITY Act can pass next week? If political figures stop issuing coins, is that good or bad for the industry? #Gate事件合约首发狂欢 #夏日创作营 #GOOGL财报亮眼但盘后跌超3% $ETH $TRUMP $BTC