#夏日创作营 Impact on the market after the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Clarity Act) passes!

First, it’s necessary to clarify what the U.S. crypto market structure bill (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act) is actually for, and then we can know which industries and which assets it will be favorable to.
1. Re-define the regulatory scope of the SEC and CFTC
Securities and tokenized securities continue to be regulated by the SEC. Network tokens, digital commodities, and their spot trading markets that meet the conditions are mainly handed over to the CFTC. The Senate version also adds the concepts of “network tokens” and “ancillary assets,” allowing projects to prove through disclosure and certification procedures that the token is no longer dependent on the project team’s ongoing management, shifting gradually from securities regulation to digital commodities regulation.
This part is indeed favorable for some “altcoins,” especially public chain projects, which can move from being inherently SEC-regulated to being CFTC-regulated—but for a purely “token issuance” project, does it matter?
2. Provide a legal route for token financing
Project teams can obtain an exemption through the new Regulation Crypto (crypto asset regulatory rules framework). The maximum annual financing amount is up to $50 million, with a four-year cumulative cap of $200 million in principle, and it also requires submitting initial and semi-annual disclosures. This would greatly reduce the risk that token financing by U.S. projects is deemed illegal securities issuance by the SEC.
The benefit here is a legal “ICO” for the project, and whether the team will pump the price is basically irrelevant; for the launchpad/platform, there isn’t much of a benefit either, because compliant ICO companies will most likely use compliant launchpads.
3. Set up a U.S. spot crypto exchange regulatory regime
Digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and market makers need to register with the CFTC and implement customer-asset segregation, conflict-of-interest management, market surveillance, information disclosure, AML, and sanctions compliance. When the digital commodities held by customers go bankrupt at the exchange, they will also be explicitly recognized as customer property, reducing the risk of FTX-style asset commingling happening again.
This part is positive for compliant U.S. trading platforms like Coinb and Robinhood, but the actual impact on Coinb is very low—because Coinb’s compliance is already enough; everything that needs to be registered has already been registered. Also, Coinb is a publicly listed company, and the market cares more about performance. You could say that on compliance alone, Coinb is already at the top among crypto exchanges in the U.S. Of course, for platforms like Coinb and Robinhood to launch new businesses, it’s beneficial—for example, launching tokenized securities does indeed expand their scope. And for other exchanges preparing to enter the U.S. or to carry out business in the U.S., the difficulty is increased.
4、 DeFi developers, people who run self-custody and non-custodial infrastructure who only develop software, operate nodes, validate transactions, or provide non-custodial services will not automatically be deemed securities brokers or funds transfer agents just because others use their code. Federal agencies also cannot broadly prohibit individuals from using self-custody wallets. However, teams that can freeze users, control protocols, or hold special permissions may still be viewed as centralized controllers and will need to bear AML, sanctions, and financial institution obligations.
This seems favorable for DeFi, but in practice, if it’s pure DeFi or a decentralized wallet, it’s still acceptable. But if on-chain systems involve protocols that may have money-laundering risk—like Tornado Cash earlier, and many privacy protocols—then they will still be closely scrutinized. And you could say this “good news” is something that previously didn’t matter, and now probably still won’t matter much: the risk is still risk, but it’s bigger now. Could this become a reason for DeFi projects to be pumped?
5. Stablecoin yield is restricted
At the moment, the biggest controversy in the market is this point. Exchanges and service providers may not provide passive yield similar to bank deposit interest purely because users hold stablecoins. But rewards generated from actual payments, trading, or activities are still allowed. Stablecoin issuance regulation is mainly handled by the already-passed GENIUS Act (Clarity Act), while CLARITY (Clarity Act) focuses more on the use of stablecoins on trading platforms and within the overall market structure.
Many people think the biggest benefit after the Clarity Act passes is stablecoins, like $CRCL or $USD1 , but in fact, based on current progress, the Clarity Act places limitations on stablecoin development—especially for interest-bearing or subsidy arrangements before the Act passed, which likely cannot continue after the Clarity Act takes effect. That means Coinb’s 3.5% interest to USDC, and USD1’s user airdrop of $WLFI —in essence, both are things prohibited by the Clarity Act. This isn’t a benefit for stablecoin development. While it saves some funds, it may limit expansion of the market. Of course, if stablecoins and exchanges can find more appropriate subsidy plans and route around the Clarity Act, there is still a chance.
So personally, if the Clarity Act includes restrictions on stablecoin subsidies and you can’t find reasons that are favorable to Circle, if it’s only about compliance, honestly, Circle is already compliant enough in the U.S. The problems it faces are the same as Coinb’s—public companies care most about performance.
6. Banks can participate more clearly in blockchain business
Banks, bank holding companies, and credit unions can conduct blockchain payments, custody, lending, and trading within their existing business permissions, while also enabling combined margin across securities, futures, and digital commodity accounts.
Banks may pledge some cryptocurrencies or tokenized securities for secured lending, which is indeed favorable. For some bank stocks, this should be good. But which ones actually benefit and how much—really isn’t something I can say for sure.
So overall, it’s the most compliant exchanges in the U.S. that are affected the most in terms of how they can operate their business. The more compliant you are, the bigger the advantage you have, and the faster you can enter new tracks. So if the Clarity Act passes, I think the relative advantage for $COIN would be greater. But for some decentralized exchanges, it could be troublesome. Custody, RWA, and tokenized infrastructure are medium-to-long-term positives—especially tokenized securities-related areas will have advantages.
However, as the compliance of top exchanges in the U.S. stock market improves, demand for on-chain RWA or on-chain U.S. stocks will gradually be compressed. Next, there may be some help for public chain categories at least—it won’t be called out by the SEC with “fight, fight, fight.” But public chains are more like public companies; it’s not that once the SEC stops regulating, they will definitely be able to pump the price. The best case is $ETH : spot ETFs have already passed and the SEC has acknowledged it’s not a security, but it’s still in a dead-alive state now. So policy could provide a push effect, but how long that effect lasts is still not something to feel optimistic about.
Then DeFi, wallets, and developer infrastructure can also benefit, but my personal feeling is that it’s more targeted at developers rather than any specific domain or project. Especially for DeFi projects, whether they pump still depends on who the main drivers are.
As for stablecoins, I believe that when it passes it may make $CRCL get a lift, but it would be purely sentiment-driven. In reality, if there’s no change to the restrictions on stablecoin subsidies, then I think the Clarity Act is a negative for stablecoins.