Democratic senators left a Tuesday meeting frustrated after Republicans walked back key elements of a tentative ethics agreement. Law enforcement groups head to the White House this afternoon.
This is ridiculous. Basically, because congress dragged its feet on clarity, a business man, who happens to be president, starts a business and because you dont like it (I dont like it either) you want to include that states AGs (thats up to 50) can sue him for something that wasn't illegal (because you dragged your feet) in the first place.
So maybe in a few years we can include language in a bill that states if you were a governor of a state, that got caught either stealing money or committing fraud, then you run for president and win, you can be sued and have to resign? You cant make up a law to intentionally charge someone for doing something that wasn't illegal in the first place!
The ethics provision is doing a lot of quiet work here. Strip it and you get a cleaner market-structure bill that can actually pass; keep it and you hand up to 50 state AGs a cudgel that spooks every issuer, not just the obvious target. Are you hearing a realistic path to a compromise text, or is this the wall the bill dies on?
The ethics snag is the part that actually threatens the timeline, not the calendar math everyone keeps fixating on. Walking back the conflict-of-interest language to hold Republicans together is exactly how a "bipartisan" bill quietly becomes a party-line one, and a party-line Clarity Act has a much narrower path through the Senate. The real tell will be whether the law enforcement outreach is about substance or just optics before the recess.
The 31-session-day clock makes the law enforcement track the one to watch. This week's $390M laundering takedown cuts both ways at that White House meeting: it's evidence existing tools work against onchain crime, but it also hands skeptical groups a fresh example of the scale they're arguing about on Section 604. If the sheriffs and DAs walk out satisfied, Warner and Cortez Masto have their cover — and ethics becomes the only real blocker left.
Japan's parliament just passed a bill regulating crypto like stocks with lower taxes from 2027 — while Clarity is stuck relitigating ethics provisions. That contrast matters: every week the ethics fight drags on, institutional capital gets more comfortable allocating under Tokyo's rules instead of waiting on ours.
This is ridiculous. Basically, because congress dragged its feet on clarity, a business man, who happens to be president, starts a business and because you dont like it (I dont like it either) you want to include that states AGs (thats up to 50) can sue him for something that wasn't illegal (because you dragged your feet) in the first place.
So maybe in a few years we can include language in a bill that states if you were a governor of a state, that got caught either stealing money or committing fraud, then you run for president and win, you can be sued and have to resign? You cant make up a law to intentionally charge someone for doing something that wasn't illegal in the first place!
The ethics provision is doing a lot of quiet work here. Strip it and you get a cleaner market-structure bill that can actually pass; keep it and you hand up to 50 state AGs a cudgel that spooks every issuer, not just the obvious target. Are you hearing a realistic path to a compromise text, or is this the wall the bill dies on?
The ethics snag is the part that actually threatens the timeline, not the calendar math everyone keeps fixating on. Walking back the conflict-of-interest language to hold Republicans together is exactly how a "bipartisan" bill quietly becomes a party-line one, and a party-line Clarity Act has a much narrower path through the Senate. The real tell will be whether the law enforcement outreach is about substance or just optics before the recess.
The 31-session-day clock makes the law enforcement track the one to watch. This week's $390M laundering takedown cuts both ways at that White House meeting: it's evidence existing tools work against onchain crime, but it also hands skeptical groups a fresh example of the scale they're arguing about on Section 604. If the sheriffs and DAs walk out satisfied, Warner and Cortez Masto have their cover — and ethics becomes the only real blocker left.
Japan's parliament just passed a bill regulating crypto like stocks with lower taxes from 2027 — while Clarity is stuck relitigating ethics provisions. That contrast matters: every week the ethics fight drags on, institutional capital gets more comfortable allocating under Tokyo's rules instead of waiting on ours.