Crypto-to-fiat Exchange

Crypto regulation in the United States has been unclear for years. For companies, the key problem has often been basic classification: which digital assets are securities, which are commodities, which regulator has authority, and what rules apply to exchanges, brokers, developers, and users.
The Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, usually shortened to CLARITY Act, is one of the most important U.S. attempts to create a clearer legal framework for the digital asset market. Its goal is to define the roles of the SEC and CFTC, establish rules for digital asset intermediaries, address decentralized finance, and give the industry more predictable standards.
Important clarification: as of mid-May 2026, the CLARITY Act is still a bill, not an enacted federal law. The Senate Banking Committee advanced H.R. 3633 in a bipartisan 15–9 vote on May 14, 2026, but the bill still needs to pass the full Senate, go through any required reconciliation between chambers, and receive final approval before becoming law.

The main issue in U.S. crypto regulation has been the absence of a unified market structure framework. A token could be viewed as a security, a commodity-like asset, or a technological utility depending on how it is issued, sold, used, and interpreted by regulators.
In the U.S., the SEC regulates securities markets, while the CFTC oversees commodity and derivatives markets. For years, the crypto industry has operated in a legal environment where the boundary between these two regimes was often disputed. The CLARITY Act aims to reduce that uncertainty by defining how different digital asset activities should be supervised.
For businesses, this matters because unclear rules make it difficult to plan token launches, listings, custody models, trading venues, and investor disclosures. For users, it affects access to services, consumer protection, and the risk of sudden platform restrictions.

The CLARITY Act did not appear in isolation. It follows earlier U.S. efforts to create a dedicated crypto market structure framework, including the FIT21 discussion and other digital asset bills that focused on the division of authority between the SEC and CFTC.
In 2025, H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, was introduced as a major House initiative. The House Financial Services Committee’s section-by-section summary described a framework covering mature blockchain systems, digital commodities, SEC and CFTC roles, DeFi-related exclusions, custody treatment, and registration for digital commodity intermediaries.
By 2026, the Senate continued working on its own version. In May 2026, the Senate Banking Committee released a section-by-section summary that expanded the framework to include banking innovation, risk management for digital asset intermediaries, studies on DeFi financial stability risks, cybersecurity standards, tokenized securities, and developer protections.
The committee vote in May 2026 was an important step, but not the final one. The bill remains part of an active legislative process.

The CLARITY Act is a market structure bill. That means it is not limited to one narrow topic, such as taxation or stablecoins. It attempts to define how the digital asset market should operate and which regulators should oversee different participants.

The bill addresses several major areas:
●     classification of digital assets;
●     the boundary between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction;
●     registration and oversight of digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers;
●     custody and segregation of customer assets;
●     treatment of certain decentralized finance activities;
●     self-custody and self-hosted wallet issues;
●     risk management for intermediaries interacting with DeFi;
●     developer and network participant protections;
●     stablecoin-related yield restrictions in the Senate version.

Four-Year Maturity Timeline
One of the important ideas in the CLARITY Act is that a token’s regulatory status may change over time. A token that was initially sold as part of a capital-raising transaction may later become sufficiently decentralized or “mature.”
In practical terms, the bill recognizes that many crypto projects begin with a more centralized structure: a founding team, early investors, a treasury, and active managerial efforts. Over time, however, control may become more distributed through broader network participation, validator growth, decentralized governance, and reduced reliance on the original issuer.
This maturity concept is designed to give projects a clearer regulatory path. Instead of treating the token’s initial sale structure as permanently defining its legal status, the bill allows for the possibility that a network token can later move toward a digital commodity framework once the underlying system becomes sufficiently mature.

Fundraising Exemption: “Regulation Crypto”
The bill also proposes a crypto-specific fundraising exemption, often described as Regulation Crypto. It is intended to create a lighter path for early-stage crypto projects raising capital, while still requiring meaningful disclosure.
Under the Senate version released in May 2026, companies could raise the greater of $50 million per calendar year for four years or 10% of the total dollar value of outstanding ancillary assets, with an overall cap of $200 million in gross proceeds. To rely on this exemption, projects would need to provide initial and semiannual disclosures, including information about the asset, the network, risks, and the role of the originator.
The idea is to avoid two extremes: forcing every early crypto project through the full public-company registration process, while also preventing token issuers from raising capital without transparency.

Repeal of the SAB 121 Approach
The CLARITY Act also addresses one of the major obstacles that previously discouraged traditional financial institutions from offering crypto custody. SAB 121 required certain companies safeguarding crypto assets for clients to record those assets and related obligations on their own balance sheets, which made crypto custody less attractive for banks and institutional custodians.
The bill’s direction is to prevent bank regulators and the SEC from requiring banks that custody customer crypto assets to treat those assets as liabilities on their own balance sheets. This could make it easier for large traditional banks to offer digital asset custody to institutional investors under a clearer regulatory framework.

Senate Version as of May 2026
The Senate version of the bill released in May 2026 describes a broader framework for the offer, sale, trading, and custody of digital assets, with both the SEC and CFTC involved. It covers digital commodity markets, token-related disclosures, fundraising exemptions, custody issues, and the regulatory treatment of intermediaries.
At the same time, it is important to remember that the CLARITY Act is still a bill, not an enacted law. Its final text may change as it moves through the full Senate, possible reconciliation between chambers, and final approval.

A central question in U.S. crypto policy is whether a digital asset should be regulated like a security or as a digital commodity.
If an asset is treated as a security, it falls primarily under the SEC’s regime. That usually means stricter disclosure, registration, and investor protection requirements. If an asset is treated as a commodity or digital commodity, the CFTC plays a larger role, especially in relation to trading venues and market conduct.
The CLARITY Act attempts to formalize that boundary. The House summary gives the CFTC authority over certain digital commodity cash or spot markets that occur on or with newly registered CFTC entities, including digital commodity exchanges, dealers, and brokers. It also preserves anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority.
For the industry, this distinction is critical. It can determine whether a token is easy to list, what disclosures are required, and which regulator oversees the platform where it trades.

One of the most important parts of the CLARITY Act is its treatment of decentralization. In crypto, “decentralization” is often used as a technical or marketing term. In this legislative context, it becomes a legal and regulatory question.
The House summary includes a process for a digital commodity issuer, related person, affiliated person, or decentralized governance system to certify to the SEC that a blockchain system is mature. It also refers to statutory conditions that a blockchain system can meet to be considered mature.
This matters because the more a project depends on a central team, issuer, insiders, or governance group, the easier it is for regulators to argue that users rely on the efforts of identifiable parties. A more distributed network may be treated differently.
For crypto projects, the implication is clear: decentralization cannot remain only a slogan. It may need to be demonstrated through governance structure, token distribution, validator or node participation, transparency, and actual control.

The CLARITY Act also focuses on digital asset intermediaries: exchanges, brokers, dealers, and related service providers.
The House version creates a federal framework for the registration and oversight of digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers. These entities would need to follow rules on capital, risk management, customer protection, recordkeeping, reporting, conflicts of interest, and custody of customer assets.
For compliant crypto businesses, this could be positive because clear rules can reduce legal uncertainty and improve trust with banks, investors, and institutional clients. At the same time, it increases operational requirements. Platforms would need stronger compliance systems, clearer disclosures, and more formal supervision.

Self-custody is one of the core principles of crypto. It means users can hold digital assets in their own wallets rather than relying on a custodian.
The Senate summary states that Treasury may issue guidance for financial institutions dealing with self-hosted wallets, but that such guidance generally cannot require collecting personally identifiable information about a self-hosted wallet controller who is not the institution’s customer or transaction counterparty.
The Senate version also includes protections for software developers and network participants in decentralized finance for activities related solely to software development or network operation.
This distinction is important. An open-source developer, node operator, or wallet developer should not automatically be treated the same way as a custodial exchange that holds client assets and executes trades on behalf of users.

The bill does not ignore decentralized finance. Instead, it tries to distinguish between protocol-level activity and intermediary activity around DeFi.
The House summary exempts certain DeFi activities related to the operation and maintenance of blockchain networks from SEC or CFTC regulation, while preserving anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority. Examples include validating, providing user interfaces, publishing and updating software, and developing wallets.
The Senate summary also requires digital asset intermediaries, before routing or conducting trading activity through a DeFi trading protocol, to maintain risk management programs addressing money laundering, sanctions evasion, fraud, market manipulation, operational risk, and cyber risk.
This is one of the most important policy directions in the bill: decentralized protocols and centralized intermediaries around them may be treated differently.

Stablecoins are another controversial part of the broader U.S. crypto policy debate.
According to the Senate section-by-section summary, the bill would prohibit covered digital asset service providers and their affiliates from paying U.S. customers passive, deposit-like interest or yield on payment stablecoin balances, while allowing certain transaction-based rewards under joint rules from the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury.
This reflects a key conflict between banks and crypto firms. Banks are concerned that stablecoin products could compete with deposits without being regulated like bank accounts. Crypto companies argue that not all rewards are equivalent to bank interest, especially when they are tied to activity rather than idle balances.

The bill has attracted support and criticism from different sides.
Supporters argue that the U.S. needs a clear crypto market structure framework. They believe the bill can reduce uncertainty, support innovation, improve consumer protection, and help compliant companies operate without relying on case-by-case enforcement.
Critics worry that moving too many assets into a CFTC-led framework could weaken investor protection compared with the SEC’s securities regime. Others are concerned about ethical conflicts, stablecoin competition with banks, and how decentralized finance exemptions could be used.
There is also a practical concern: even if the bill becomes law, regulators would still need to write and implement detailed rules. That process could take months or years.

As of May 15, 2026, the CLARITY Act is not yet law.

The key status points are:
●     H.R. 3633 was introduced in 2025 as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025;
●     the House version developed a market structure framework for digital assets;
●     the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill on May 14, 2026, by a 15–9 bipartisan vote;
●     the bill still needs to move through the full Senate and any required reconciliation process before final enactment.

So it is accurate to describe CLARITY Act as an advanced and highly important crypto bill, but not as an enacted law.

At first glance, CLARITY Act is a U.S. domestic bill. In practice, its influence could be much broader.
The United States remains one of the largest markets for capital, exchanges, venture funding, custody, and enforcement actions. If the U.S. creates a clearer digital asset framework, global crypto companies may adapt their compliance models, token listing standards, disclosures, and internal risk policies accordingly.

The bill could influence:
●     how exchanges list digital assets;
●     how projects document decentralization;
●     how banks assess crypto companies;
●     how custodians manage digital assets;
●     how DeFi interfaces and infrastructure providers operate;
●     how international regulators compare their own frameworks.

Even users outside the U.S. may feel indirect effects because many major platforms and issuers operate globally but still account for U.S. regulatory risk.

The broader message is clear: crypto is moving from a gray-zone market into a more structured financial environment.

If a framework like the CLARITY Act is enacted, several trends are likely to become more important:
●     decentralization will become a measurable regulatory concept;
●     self-custody will remain a major policy issue;
●     centralized intermediaries will face more formal obligations;
●     DeFi will be judged differently depending on whether activity is protocol-level or intermediary-driven;
●     stablecoins will become more integrated into traditional financial regulation;
●     compliant crypto businesses may gain more predictable access to banks and institutional capital.

The CLARITY Act does not answer every question in crypto regulation. But it shows the direction of travel: clearer classifications, more defined responsibilities, and a stronger distinction between decentralized technology and centralized financial services.

Learn more in our Blog