The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as H.R. 3633, has made significant progress in the United States legislative process. With bipartisan support, the bill has successfully passed through both the House Financial Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee, positioning it for consideration by the full House of Representatives.
This proposed legislation aims to establish a clear regulatory framework for digital assets in the country, addressing the jurisdictional ambiguity that currently exists. The bill assigns regulatory oversight of digital assets to either the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), depending on the classification of the asset.
The CLARITY Act introduces a classification system that distinguishes between “digital commodities” and “investment contract assets.” Digital commodities, which are assets intrinsically linked to a blockchain system, fall under the primary authority of the CFTC, while the SEC retains jurisdiction over investment contract assets sold or transferred as part of an investment contract.
One of the key elements of the bill is the concept of a “mature blockchain system,” defined as a network not controlled by any individual or group. This criterion determines when a project and its associated token can transition away from certain SEC disclosure requirements. The legislation also includes provisions to protect individuals’ rights to self-custody their assets and for developers of non-custodial software.
Supporters of the bill argue that it provides a necessary foundation for the digital asset industry to thrive in the United States. Industry organizations, such as the Crypto Council for Innovation and the American Bankers Association, have expressed their support for the bill, praising its role in defining agency roles and protecting consumers.
However, not everyone is in favor of the proposed framework. Former regulators like Timothy Massad have raised concerns that the definition of a “digital commodity” is too narrow and could leave a significant portion of the market in regulatory uncertainty. Critics also worry that the bill’s definitions could create incentives for regulatory arbitrage.
Despite these criticisms, the bill has advanced through the committee process and now awaits consolidation of the two committee versions before it can be scheduled for a vote on the House floor. The bipartisan support for the bill demonstrates a growing consensus on the need for clear and consistent regulation in the digital asset space.