Betting markets are cooling fast on the odds that the US Senate will move the CLARITY Act forward this year, after Polymarket participants briefly pushed the probability higher following a newly revised Republican proposal—only to cut back sharply once Democrats signaled they were still not satisfied with the ethics language.

According to Polymarket’s tracker for the event “CLARITY Act signed into law in 2026,” the odds rose to as high as 35% after the GOP circulated a revised draft the previous day, including expanded ethics provisions. By Monday, the probability had fallen again, reportedly dipping as low as 16% as reservations about the updated text intensified. The bill would require 60 votes to advance, and a failure to clear procedural hurdles on Tuesday could delay the legislation that would shape how US regulators—specifically the SEC and CFTC—divide oversight for crypto-related products.

Key takeaways

• Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year fell from around 35% to about 16% after renewed Democratic pushback on ethics provisions.
• Several Senate Democrats reportedly say the revised draft’s safeguards are still not strong enough to prevent corruption “in real time.”
• Republicans likely need 60 votes to advance the bill procedurally; losing momentum could stall the SEC/CFTC oversight framework for crypto.
• Outside groups—tribal interests, state attorneys general, and banking trade associations—are adding pressure by arguing the latest draft still has gaps.

Why Polymarket odds reversed so quickly

The turn came after a revised Republican “final” proposal was circulated to Democrats, with the update described as strengthening ethics provisions. For Polymarket traders, that appeared to be a constructive signal—leading to the short-lived jump in odds to 35%. But on Monday, multiple reports and comments pointed to continued friction over whether the ethics changes adequately address concerns about conflicts and enforcement credibility.

US Senator Mark Warner, a central figure in the negotiations, was among those weighing in, with reported comments that the revised ethics wording was not “near enough.” At the same time, Democrats involved in the talks were said to be preparing a counterproposal, indicating that the GOP draft did not fully close the gap on what they consider acceptable guardrails.

That combination—public skepticism from Democratic negotiators and an apparent move toward further bargaining—helped explain why bettors quickly re-priced the likelihood of near-term Senate progress.

Democrats push for stronger protections—while not every member is aligned

Reporting from Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen highlighted the growing sense among some Democratic senators that the revisions still fall short. Pedersen reported that Senator Raphael Warnock said Democrats should not advance legislation that does not address corruption opportunities “in real time.” He also reported that Senator Ruben Gallego described the latest ethics offer as leaving “much to be desired” and indicated he planned to work on a counterproposal.

Pedersen further reported that talking points circulated by staff for Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee argued that a proposed mechanism for state AG enforcement could be overridden by a determination from White House ethics officials. Separate reporting from Politico’s Jasper Goodman, citing three people familiar with the matter, said Democrats have already sent their counterproposal to Republican negotiators.

Still, the opposition within the Democratic caucus is not uniform. Politico reported that Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has privately urged colleagues to support the procedural motion, suggesting at least some Democrats see a path to advancing the measure even if they remain dissatisfied with parts of it. On the Republican side, Senator Cynthia Lummis said President Donald Trump had accepted two significant ethics provisions and claimed “nothing left to give,” framing the remaining debate as unlikely to produce further concessions.

Together, these reports underscore a key asymmetry: while Republicans appear to believe ethics changes are already substantial, parts of the Democratic side seem focused on tightening specific enforcement or conflict-of-interest concerns before allowing the bill to proceed.

External pressure mounts: tribal gaming and banking groups raise distinct objections

Beyond Senate negotiations, the CLARITY Act’s latest language is facing challenges from multiple outside constituencies, each arguing from a different policy angle.

The Indian Gaming Association—representing tribal gaming interests—urged member tribes to press senators to vote against the bill. In its action alert, the group argued that proposed decentralized finance changes do not address concerns in Indian Country relating to prediction markets. The association specifically called for explicit language affirming that federal commodities law does not preempt tribal or state gaming laws, including protections under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The group’s intervention matters because it suggests the bill’s definitional and regulatory reach could have ripple effects for how prediction-market-like activities are treated across jurisdictions.

In parallel, eight banking trade groups also criticized the revised text. According to a joint statement published by the American Bankers Association, the groups argued the proposal did not close loopholes that could allow stablecoin rewards functioning similarly to deposit interest. The banks also contended that a proposed “circuit breaker” mechanism would activate only after substantial deposit flight from community banks had already occurred—meaning the measure could be less protective in the early stages of any shift in consumer behavior.

Meanwhile, the crypto industry has continued to lobby for Senate action. In a statement released Monday, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger argued that the industry has made significant concessions to build bipartisan support and urged every senator to vote yes. She also claimed the bill would establish clearer rules, protect consumers, deter illicit activity, and reduce incentives for crypto-related jobs, development, and innovation to relocate overseas.

These competing pressures—tribal and banking concerns on one side, industry arguments on the other—highlight that the CLARITY Act is not only a regulator-jurisdiction question (SEC vs. CFTC), but also a broader policy fight over market design, enforcement mechanisms, and consumer protections.

What happens next depends on the vote math

Republicans require 60 votes to advance the bill. With Polymarket odds falling again and multiple Democratic negotiators reportedly preparing counter-language, the immediate risk is that the Senate cannot assemble the necessary procedural support this week. For investors and crypto market participants, that matters because the bill is intended to clarify how US regulators oversee crypto assets and related trading products, potentially reducing uncertainty that can affect policy expectations and compliance planning.

Watch whether Democrats unite behind the procedural motion and whether negotiators converge on ethics wording acceptable to key holdouts. The unresolved question is whether the revised draft’s safeguards are “near enough,” or whether further concessions will be required before the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold.

Odds of the CLARITY Act becoming law this year on Polymarket fell sharply again on Monday after spiking the day before, as key Senate Democrats reportedly said they had not been swayed by Republicans’ “final” crypto bill proposal.  

Polymarket traders initially saw a newly revised Republican proposal with expanded ethics provisions as a positive sign, sending the odds to 35%. However, their confidence was dashed as reservations about the revised text began mounting, with the odds falling back as low as 16% on Monday. 

US Senator Mark Warner, one of the Democrats involved in negotiations, reportedly said the revised ethics provision was not “near enough,” while Democrats involved in negotiations began preparing a counterproposal on Monday. 

Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill, and failure on Tuesday could stall legislation that would determine how the US Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission divide oversight of the US crypto market.

Key Democrats remain unconvinced by ethics offer

Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen reported that Senator Raphael Warnock said Democrats should not advance legislation that fails to address opportunities for corruption that are occurring “in real time.”

Pedersen reported that Senator Ruben Gallego said the latest ethics offer left “much to be desired” and that he planned to work on a counterproposal. Pedersen separately reported that staff for Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Senate Banking Committee circulated talking points arguing that the proposed state AG enforcement mechanism could be overridden by a determination from White House ethics officials.

Democrats have since sent their counterproposal to Republican negotiators, Politico’s Jasper Goodman reported, citing three people with knowledge of the matter.

Not all Democrats oppose advancing the bill toward floor consideration. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has privately urged colleagues to support the procedural motion, Politico reported. 

Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis said President Donald Trump had accepted two significant ethics provisions and that there was “nothing left to give” Democrats.

The resistance adds to opposition from a coalition of 18 state attorneys general and raises further uncertainty about whether Republicans can assemble the votes needed to advance the bill. 

Banking and tribal groups challenge latest text

The Indian Gaming Association, a national organization representing tribal gaming interests, urged member tribes to press senators to vote against the bill, saying its proposed decentralized finance changes did not address Indian Country’s concerns about prediction markets. 

The association called for explicit language affirming that federal commodities law does not preempt tribal or state gaming laws, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Related: Revised CLARITY Act targets ‘non-decentralized’ DeFi operators

Eight banking trade groups also said the revised text failed to close loopholes allowing stablecoin rewards that function like deposit interest. According to the groups, the proposed regulatory “circuit breaker” would activate only after substantial deposit flight from community banks had already occurred.

Crypto industry groups have urged senators to advance the legislation. In a statement on Monday, Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger said the industry had made significant concessions to help build bipartisan support and urged every senator to vote yes. 

She argued that the bill would provide clear rules, protect consumers and deter illicit activity while preventing crypto jobs, developers and innovation from moving overseas. 

Magazine: Why are AI’s biggest companies suddenly asking to slow down?

CoinEx, a cryptocurrency exchange launched in December 2017 by the ViaBTC mining pool, says it is winding down its trading operations amid a prolonged downturn that has pressured volumes and liquidity. In an announcement shared on Tuesday, the platform cited sinking market activity as well as increasing regulatory and compliance burdens that it says have become difficult to manage over time.

CoinEx’s shutdown will be phased: new sign-ups will be stopped first, trading will gradually be curtailed across its derivatives and then spot markets, and withdrawals will conclude at the end of a scheduled withdrawal window. The exchange also plans to buy back its CET token at its initial listing price of 0.005 USDT per token.

Key takeaways

• CoinEx will halt new user registrations, rewards, and referral commissions as part of an operational wind-down.
• Futures trading will shift to “Reduce-Only,” and the exchange will stop taking new orders or subscriptions across multiple non-spot and related services.
• From Sept. 29, CoinEx says it will discontinue spot trading and process non-USDT assets.
• By Dec. 22, the withdrawal window ends and the platform ceases operations; remaining USDT will be moved to an independent custodian with a monthly custody fee.
• CoinEx Wallet and CoinEx Vault will remain operational, as they run independently of the exchange.

A phased exit from exchange services

CoinEx framed its decision as a recognition that the exchange has struggled to reach the scale of leading trading venues, while compliance and security risks have grown increasingly hard to contain. In a statement attributed to CoinEx CEO Haipo Yang, the executive said the company has accepted what it describes as a “hard truth,” pointing to both operational realities and the broader risk profile of running a crypto exchange.

Under the plan described in the announcement, CoinEx will first stop new user registrations along with referral commissions and other rewards. It will also move futures contracts into a “Reduce-Only” mode, a common structure used by exchanges during wind-downs to limit further leverage building while allowing existing positions to be closed.

CoinEx further said it will stop accepting new orders or subscriptions across fiat, margin trading, lending, earn, staking, and strategic trading services. This effectively freezes the majority of activities beyond pure withdrawals, aiming to transition users toward an orderly exit rather than continued product expansion.

Dates that traders and depositors should track

The company’s shutdown timeline is detailed in several steps. Starting Sept. 22, CoinEx says it will discontinue all non-spot services and onchain deposits, with the exception of CET deposits. That exception suggests CET will remain the only token flow supported during the early portion of the wind-down, potentially reflecting the exchange’s plan to address CET holders through a buyback.

From Sept. 29, CoinEx says it will end all spot trading services and process non-USDT assets. For users with assets on the platform, this matters because it signals the shift from a market-facing platform to a custody-and-redemption phase, where activity is increasingly about settlement and withdrawal rather than trading.

Finally, CoinEx states that the withdrawal period will end on Dec. 22, when the platform will cease operations. Any USDT that users have not withdrawn will be transferred to an independent custodian, which will charge a monthly custody fee. This is an important detail for users who may be deciding whether to withdraw immediately or wait; it implies costs may persist after the trading platform itself has stopped operating.

CET buyback and token holders

CoinEx says it will buy back CET at its initial listing price of 0.005 USDT per token. The announcement adds that this level is slightly higher than the CET price on Monday before the shutdown announcement. While the buyback mechanism is meant to address token holders during the exit process, users will still need to pay attention to how and when redemption will occur, particularly if any parts of the exchange’s functions are paused ahead of the final withdrawal deadline.

Notably, the company’s plan to allow only CET deposits after Sept. 22 reinforces that CET is at the center of the wind-down’s remaining token-related activity, at least through the early stages.

Why CoinEx’s shutdown fits a broader industry pattern

CoinEx’s exit joins a string of exchange failures and shutdowns reported earlier this year, including BitMart, BitMEX, and AscendEX. In the CoinEx announcement, the reasons are presented as a combination of market conditions and structural pressure: trading volumes and liquidity have deteriorated during the crypto downturn, and compliance and security costs have reportedly increased at the same time.

That combination is particularly relevant for users and market participants because it suggests a shift in what keeps exchanges viable. Even platforms with established brands can struggle if order books thin out for long periods, lowering revenue while compliance workloads and risk management demands continue.

CoinEx’s approach—phasing down products, moving futures to reduce-only, stopping new orders, then eventually ending spot trading and withdrawals—mirrors common wind-down playbooks intended to reduce operational risk while managing user exits. Still, the practical effect for traders is that liquidity and platform functionality will likely contract in stages, which can make position management and withdrawal planning time-sensitive.

What remains available

CoinEx says its CoinEx Wallet and CoinEx Vault will remain fully operational because they are run independently from the exchange. For users, this distinction is significant: it suggests that even as exchange trading shuts down, some related services may continue to function, reducing the need for users to rebuild or transfer assets immediately—though the company’s later schedule still indicates that exchange withdrawals will ultimately be the main path out before Dec. 22.

As CoinEx’s timeline progresses, the key question for users will be whether CET deposits, asset processing, and withdrawal handling proceed as announced—especially around the Sept. 29 spot discontinuation and the Dec. 22 end of withdrawals. Those dates will likely determine how quickly users need to act to avoid any last-minute custody transitions or fees tied to USDT remaining on the platform.

The XRP Ledger’s Batch V1.1 amendment has moved within one validator vote of starting its two-week activation process after developers fixed another 11 software issues uncovered during security reviews.

RippleX said Monday that the latest review of Batch V1.1 identified problems involving transaction signatures, authorization checks and server crashes, with the fixes incorporated into the version now being considered by XRP Ledger validators.

Support stood at 27 of the 35 trusted validators on Tuesday, equal to roughly 77%, leaving the proposal just below the 80% level required to enter the network’s activation period.

XRP Ledger Batch upgrade closes in on 80% support

Batch V1.1 would allow as many as eight transactions to be grouped into a single operation, with execution rules that can require linked transactions to succeed together.

For a token swap between two users, the feature could make both transfers dependent on each other. If one side of the exchange fails, the other transaction would not be completed independently.

Wallets and marketplaces could use the same structure to process a customer payment and a platform fee together. RippleX said commercial projects using Batch are already under contract or development, though the developer team has not publicly identified the companies involved.

Validator support has risen quickly over the past week. On Sept. 8, Batch V1.1 had 24 votes from the 35 validators on the default Unique Node List, equal to 68.57%, crypto.news previously reported. Three more validators have since backed the amendment.

Under XRP Ledger governance rules, an amendment must maintain at least 80% validator support for 14 consecutive days before it can activate. With 35 trusted validators currently counted, another supporting vote would take Batch V1.1 above the threshold and begin that period.

The outcome would not be locked in once the countdown starts. Validators can change their positions, and support falling below 80% during the 14-day window would interrupt the activation process.

A similar process played out in July when the fixCleanup3_2_0 amendment secured 85.71% support and entered its activation window. The package subsequently activated on July 29 after retaining enough validator backing for the required period.

Batch V1.1 replaces an earlier version with a serious flaw

The current vote follows the withdrawal of the original Batch design after researchers found a vulnerability before the feature reached the XRP Ledger mainnet.

Under certain conditions, the flaw could have allowed an attacker to place transactions from another user’s account inside a batch without obtaining the required authorization. No user funds were put at risk because the affected amendment never activated.

Developers rebuilt the feature following the discovery, with Batch V1.1 later included in xrpld 3.3.0, released on Aug. 6.

The xrpld 3.3.0 release introduced the corrected Batch implementation alongside several other proposed protocol features. Each amendment still requires separate validator approval before becoming active on the mainnet.

RippleX software engineer Mayukha Vadari said the original signature problem was found in February before mainnet deployment. The subsequent work included a root-cause fix, reviews by four senior engineers, a Sherlock security contest and audits from Halborn and Common Prefix.

“After the v1.0 signature bug was caught in February (pre-Mainnet, no funds at risk), we rebuilt it,” Vadari wrote on X on Sept. 14.

The review process did not end with the initial vulnerability. RippleX said another 11 issues were found while the replacement implementation was being examined.

Security reviews found 11 more Batch issues

The additional findings covered signature handling, authorization checks and software conditions capable of crashing servers.

Common Prefix classified one of the vulnerabilities as critical. According to RippleX’s review, the issue could have allowed an attacker to reuse permission that a user had signed and carry out more transactions than the user originally intended to authorize.

Other findings involved the way Batch transactions verified permissions and processed signatures. Developers addressed the reported problems before the amendment reached its current stage of validator voting.

RippleX said four senior engineers reviewed the implementation, while Halborn and Common Prefix performed outside audits. The code went through automated testing and a public security contest designed to expose weaknesses before activation.

Security testing has been used across other recent XRP Ledger proposals. A June Common Prefix security review identified numerical and behavioral issues in XRPL components, with fixes deployed through version 3.2.0. The security firm was subsequently tasked with formal verification and analysis of other parts of the network.

A separate Sherlock contest covering proposed XRP Ledger features found dozens of valid vulnerabilities before the affected amendments reached mainnet, including critical and high-severity findings.

Batch forms part of the xrpld 3.3.0 feature set

Batch is one of several protocol changes introduced through the 3.3.0 software cycle as XRP Ledger developers work on transaction settlement, privacy, permissions and institutional features.

Before the software was released, developers outlined five proposed XRPL amendments that included Batch transactions, Confidential MPT, Sponsor, Dynamic MPT and Permission Delegation.

Batch is designed around atomic settlement, where multiple related operations can be handled as a coordinated transaction instead of being submitted separately.

Permission Delegation would allow an account to grant restricted authority to another account without handing over full control. Confidential MPT is designed to conceal balances and transfer amounts for Multi-Purpose Tokens while keeping account identities visible on the public ledger.

None of the features becomes active simply because its code is included in xrpld. Validators separately decide whether to support amendments, leaving each proposal on its own voting schedule.

The network has already seen different adoption rates across the 3.3.0 proposals. Ripple voted in August for the PermissionDelegationV1_1 amendment when it had support from seven of the 35 trusted validators.

Batch has since moved much closer to the activation threshold. Its current 27 votes leave the amendment one supporting validator away from starting the 14-day period, provided the existing votes remain in place.

RippleX has not named the commercial projects it said are under contract or development to use Batch. CoinDesk said it asked the developer team which companies are preparing to use the feature and whether the 11 latest fixes received independent review against the version currently being considered by validators.