Senate Republicans have released the full proposed text for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a wide-ranging bill intended to establish a clearer US regulatory framework for digital assets. The 616-page document, published Wednesday, includes a particularly forceful ethics section that would bar US federal officials from issuing, sponsoring, or otherwise promoting digital assets.

According to the bill’s text—posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis—public officials, their spouses, and federal employees would be prohibited from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. In parallel, the legislation would prevent crypto platforms from listing assets that are issued or sponsored by covered federal officials. Lummis described the ethics package as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history,” language that the White House also highlighted around the proposal.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Act’s ethics rules would restrict covered federal officials (and their spouses) from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
• Crypto platforms would face a related prohibition on listing assets that are issued or sponsored by those federal officials.
• The ethics ban would be temporary, ending on Jan. 20, 2029, coinciding with the end of a second presidential term.
• Enforcement would largely fall to the US Department of Justice rather than state regulators, elevating the role of federal prosecutors.
• Passage still appears uncertain because Democrats must support the bill to reach a 60-vote Senate threshold.

Ethics provisions at the center of the debate

The ethics section is the headline-grabbing part of CLARITY, largely because it attempts to directly tie conflict-of-interest rules to digital asset activity by senior federal actors. Under the proposed language, a broad group of federal officials, their spouses, and public employees would be barred from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.

The bill goes further by addressing market access: crypto platforms would be blocked from listing assets issued or sponsored by those same federal officials. That structure matters because it doesn’t just restrict official conduct—it also attempts to constrain the flow of capital and attention toward assets that would otherwise benefit from federal ties.

Senator Lummis, a key advocate for the bill, said the provisions would apply to President Donald Trump, who has faced criticism from lawmakers over the scope of his crypto-related financial interests while in office. In earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, lawmakers have pointed to reporting that Trump earned more than $1.4 billion in 2025 from his crypto ventures. Lummis framed CLARITY as applying a uniform ethics standard to everyone, including the President.

At the same time, the temporary nature of the prohibition stands out. The ban would expire on Jan. 20, 2029—described in the bill context as the day a second presidential term ends. That design could influence how both supporters and skeptics assess the bill: for supporters, it offers a near-term deterrent backed by enforcement; for opponents, it may raise questions about what happens after the expiration date.

Department of Justice enforcement and the confirmation question

Another crucial aspect of the ethics language is where enforcement would sit. The bill assigns primary responsibility to the US Attorney General and the federal Justice Department rather than leaving implementation primarily to states. As of Wednesday, reporting in the crypto space indicated that Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney and the acting Attorney General—was awaiting a Senate confirmation vote to lead the Justice Department.

That federal enforcement focus appears to be one of the reasons the bill’s ethics provisions are drawing intense scrutiny. In comments reported by Politico, Senator Angela Alsobrooks said she would not support the bill if the ethics language did not include the Justice Department behind enforcement, adding that Democrats would continue working from the Senate floor to reach an agreement that holds everyone accountable.

Lummis, speaking on behalf of the Senate Banking Committee’s digital assets subcommittee, emphasized that the proposal is not merely symbolic. She said the bill would be “backed up with real enforcement, real penalties, and a Department of Justice mandate to act.”

What’s missing—or at least not included—in the text

While the ethics rules are extensive, the bill’s boundaries are also being parsed by observers. Notably, the ethics provisions described in coverage of the proposal do not appear to include children of public officials in the temporary ban.

That omission is politically meaningful given that two of Trump’s sons are described as co-founders of a family business tied to the crypto sector. The article coverage also referenced that three of Trump’s sons are co-founders of World Liberty Financial, and that two launched a Bitcoin mining company, American Bitcoin. For Democrats who have demanded strict ethics language, the lack of coverage for children could become a focal point during negotiations—especially if lawmakers argue that indirect conflicts should be treated the same as direct ones.

Meanwhile, even supporters who back the bill’s overall ethics thrust still face a broader question: will the final package be strong enough, and structured enough, to satisfy lawmakers who have said they will not vote for any version lacking meaningful ethics reforms addressing “crypto corruption.”

Senate math and the path to a vote

CLARITY is not expected to move quickly through Congress without bargaining. The bill still requires Democratic support to achieve the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Coverage has noted that many Democrats have explicitly tied their willingness to vote to the strength of the ethics language, suggesting that negotiations—particularly around enforcement details and who exactly is covered—could determine whether CLARITY can reach the level needed for passage.

There is also a procedural clock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly plans to put CLARITY up for a vote on the Senate floor sometime next week, according to coverage of the proposal. The Senate’s calendar is tight: the chamber has only a few weeks to hold votes before breaking for state work periods.

Political and policy observers are also framing CLARITY as more than an ethics bill. According to Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, the Senate version adds not only ethics and enforcement language but also a broader set of provisions, including a full disclosure regime, expanded illicit finance measures, and improved spot market regulation. That view suggests the core argument for moving forward is not limited to the ethics section—it is also about whether the overall market-structure framework can become durable, bipartisan legislation.

Whether CLARITY ultimately lands on President Trump’s desk will likely hinge on negotiations over the ethics boundaries, the enforcement mechanism, and what Democrats consider sufficient to address conflict-of-interest concerns in the digital asset industry.

For now, readers should watch the next procedural steps in the Senate—especially whether enough Democrats commit their votes before the chamber’s schedule constrains further bargaining—and closely monitor whether any amendments emerge that expand (or narrow) who is covered by the ethics restrictions and how strictly the Justice Department would be expected to enforce them.

Coinbase has introduced SUI staking for eligible customers while Sui advances its Bitcoin-focused Hashi testnet. The rollout allows users to earn daily rewards directly through their exchange accounts. Meanwhile, Hashi gives developers and institutions a controlled environment for testing Bitcoin financial applications.

SUI Staking Opens With Daily Rewards

Coinbase said customers can begin staking with at least one SUI token. Estimated annual rewards range between 1.4% and 3.3%, depending on network conditions. The exchange distributes rewards after each 24-hour Sui network epoch.

It also automatically adds earned rewards to each customer’s staked balance. This auto-compounding process increases the amount participating in future staking periods. However, actual returns may change as network activity and validator performance shift.

The company announced the service through an official post on X. “You can now stake SUI – directly on Coinbase,” the exchange said. It also promised “Instant rewards, accumulated straight to your account.”

Regional Limits Accompany Staking Rollout

Coinbase stated that the staking service remains unavailable in certain jurisdictions. Regional regulations and account eligibility will determine which customers can access the product. The company also clarified that its announcement did not provide investment advice.

The launch arrived as Coinbase ended a long-running information dispute with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC agreed to pay $150,000 as part of a settlement announced Wednesday. The legal matter concerned a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit involving requested agency records.

Despite these developments, Coinbase shares declined during Wednesday’s trading session. COIN stock fell 3.67% and traded near $169.40 during intraday activity. The decline continued a recent downtrend in the exchange operator’s market value.

Hashi Testnet Targets Bitcoin-Based Finance

Sui launched the Hashi testnet alongside support from more than 25 ecosystem partners. Developers, custodians, and financial institutions can test Bitcoin applications before the planned mainnet launch. The platform connects Sui’s blockchain performance with Hashi’s Guardian Layer security system.

The Guardian Layer strengthens controls surrounding Bitcoin used as collateral. It also supports transparent and programmable financial activity conducted through on-chain applications. Participants can test security features and operating processes before deploying products on the main network.

Hashi targets applications including lending, credit products, and structured yield strategies. Coinbase adds broader SUI access while the testnet expands Bitcoin’s role within the Sui ecosystem. Together, both launches mark new infrastructure developments for staking and institutional Bitcoin finance.

U.S. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has warned that crypto “vaults” and onchain lending products may fall within federal securities laws—especially when the design involves discretionary decisions about how user assets are managed. In a statement released Wednesday, Peirce focused on strategies where operators actively determine key parameters such as asset allocation, the choice of yield activities, lending terms, and even liquidation thresholds.

The remarks arrive as onchain yield products continue to proliferate and are increasingly packaged for retail and institutional users. Peirce emphasized that shifting activity onto a blockchain does not automatically remove it from securities-law scrutiny, urging developers and operators to assess compliance early rather than after launch.

Key takeaways

• Peirce said crypto vaults and lending strategies that use discretionary management decisions may be subject to U.S. securities laws.
• Some vault structures could potentially be treated as securities offerings or investment companies, depending on how they operate.
• Operators who control allocation choices or lending parameters may also face investment adviser regulatory exposure.
• Whether certain onchain loans qualify as securities depends on how they are structured, distributed, and used.

Why “onchain” doesn’t automatically mean “outside” securities law

Peirce’s statement targets a common assumption in parts of the crypto market: that moving asset-management mechanics onto a blockchain somehow changes the legal analysis. She argued that it does not, stating that moving activities that fall within federal securities laws to onchain systems does not remove those activities from the laws the SEC enforces.

Her core point is functional rather than technical. When product logic or operational design results in users’ returns being driven by decisions that resemble investment management—such as choosing where funds are allocated, what yield strategy is used, what lending terms apply, or when liquidations occur—the SEC’s jurisdiction may come into play. Peirce said the applicability of federal securities laws would vary based on the vault or lending product’s structure and operation.

How vaults and lending strategies could trigger securities-related requirements

Peirce said some crypto vaults could fall into categories that are historically associated with securities offerings or investment companies. She also suggested that the parties setting or managing vault allocations and the parameters of lending strategies could trigger investment adviser requirements, again depending on who makes the relevant decisions and how.

She further noted that even certain onchain loans may qualify as securities based on how they are structured, distributed to users, and used in practice. This matters for the industry because it reframes regulatory risk around product behavior and decision-making—rather than whether the product uses smart contracts, custody models, or decentralized interfaces.

For developers, the message is straightforward: if a product involves discretionary choices about how user assets are deployed to pursue yield, it may need legal review to determine whether it is functioning as a regulated investment product.

Onchain yield products keep expanding despite regulatory scrutiny

Vault-style yield offerings have grown rapidly this year, with companies packaging DeFi strategies into products that aim to make returns and risks more accessible. Instead of requiring each user to individually select lending venues, liquidity pools, and risk controls, these products often present strategy comparisons and automated execution.

Earlier this year, Sentora opened its Smart Yield platform to the public in April, positioning it as a way for users to compare DeFi vaults based on strategy, yield, and risk metrics. Wallet in Telegram also launched self-custodial Bitcoin, Ether, and USDT vaults earlier, offering automated yield generation while avoiding a centralized custodian model—an approach designed to reduce custody friction for users.

Separately, Kraken rolled out a Bitcoin vault in May. According to earlier coverage, the offering targeted up to 2.5% variable APY by deploying wrapped Bitcoin into decentralized lending protocols including Aave and Morpho, with rewards paid in Bitcoin and varying with borrowing demand in the underlying markets.

These developments illustrate a key tension: vault products are increasingly marketed as convenient wrappers around DeFi strategies, but Peirce’s comments suggest convenience and packaging do not necessarily limit securities-law questions if discretion or investment management-like decision-making is embedded in product design.

Operational and technical risks remain—regulation could add another layer

Beyond legal exposure, vaults and yield strategies can also create technical risk for users. In December, DeFi protocol Yearn disclosed an exploit affecting its legacy yETH yield vault, reporting roughly $9 million impacted, while stating that its V2 and V3 vaults were not affected.

If regulators determine that certain vault offerings fall under federal securities laws, operators could face additional compliance obligations—such as SEC registration or qualification for exemptions, along with disclosure requirements and related regulatory duties. For product teams, this could significantly change how they structure governance, decision-making rights, user communications, and risk disclosures.

At the same time, Peirce’s statement suggests the legal analysis is not a blanket “DeFi equals securities.” Instead, it depends on what the product does in practice—especially whether the system (or the people behind it) makes discretionary determinations that affect outcomes for users.

Going forward, market participants should watch how operators describe and operationalize decision-making in vault and lending products, and whether SEC-related guidance or enforcement actions further clarify which onchain structures meet securities-law thresholds. The uncertainty remains high for discretionary strategies, but Peirce’s framing makes the likely direction of scrutiny easier to anticipate: the regulator will focus on investment-like management decisions, not just whether the mechanics are implemented on-chain.

Polymarket has announced a French court challenge five days after regulators ordered internet providers to block the platform over gambling-loss and market-manipulation concerns.

Reuters reported on July 22 that the crypto-based prediction market intends to contest the National Gambling Authority’s decision through France’s legal system.

“We are disappointed by the French gaming authority’s (ANJ’s) sudden decision to unilaterally block our website — we intend to challenge this decision through the legal process in France,” Polymarket stated.

ANJ President Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin issued the order on July 16, directing French internet service providers to restrict access to Polymarket. According to ANJ’s statement cited by Reuters, the website attracted a large French audience while offering gambling and betting services that the regulator considers illegal under national law.

A spokesperson for ANJ told Reuters that the block would remain until the regulator considers Polymarket compliant with France’s gambling rules. Polymarket’s planned case will now test whether the authority can continue restricting the website under its current classification of the platform.

Unlike conventional sportsbooks, Polymarket lets users trade contracts tied to outcomes in politics, economics, sports, weather and armed conflicts. Traders buy positions representing possible results, with contract prices changing as market expectations move.

French regulator focuses on losses and manipulation

ANJ linked its intervention to the amount users could lose and the design of certain contracts available through Polymarket. The regulator warned that some of those markets could be manipulated and expose customers to substantial gambling losses.

Weather contracts received particular attention in ANJ’s statement. The regulator reported that users had wagered on weather outcomes and raised suspicions that some participants might have traded with inside information.

Polymarket did not provide details about its legal arguments or state when it would file the challenge. Its statement only confirmed that it would use the French legal process to oppose the restriction.

While ANJ targeted Polymarket in its July order, French authorities did not announce an equivalent block against rival platform Kalshi in the same statement. Spain took a different approach in May when its government temporarily prohibited both companies from operating, crypto.news reported.

The French action has arrived as prediction platforms handle increasingly large sums. A person familiar with Polymarket’s finances told Reuters in June that the company’s annualized revenue had exceeded $1 billion.

Trading across the sector has also climbed around major sporting events. Dune Analytics data cited by Reuters showed that users wagered about $19.04 billion through Polymarket and Kalshi during the recently completed soccer World Cup.

Those figures have increased the stakes in disputes over whether event contracts should be treated as financial instruments, gambling products or a separate class requiring its own rules. French authorities have applied gambling law to Polymarket, while regulatory arguments in the United States remain divided between federal derivatives oversight and state betting laws.

U.S. scrutiny targets sports markets and informed trading

Across the Atlantic, the U.S. House Agriculture Committee has examined customer protection and market integrity in sports prediction markets. Its Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee heard from legal specialists and representatives of the American Gaming Association and Indian Gaming Association.

Both gaming groups have pressed Congress to stop platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket from offering sports event contracts. According to the associations, those products function like ordinary sports bets but can bypass state gambling controls, tribal gaming rights and established responsible-betting requirements.

Prediction-market supporters have argued that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission already has authority over event contracts. The CFTC supported federal jurisdiction in disputes involving state regulators and released draft rules for the prediction-market industry in June.

State courts have not consistently accepted that federal authority prevents local enforcement. On July 21, a Washington judge granted the state a preliminary injunction against Kalshi, finding that its contracts likely violated state gambling laws. Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada and New York had also secured orders restricting the company’s activities.

Alongside disputes over sports products, possible informed trading has brought another source of scrutiny. Polymarket has referred nearly 100 suspicious crypto wallets to law enforcement while increasing its monitoring of possible insider activity, according to information provided in the additional reporting.

A Bloomberg analysis of Polysights data identified about $200 million in Polymarket trades from the first half of 2026 that carried traits associated with potential insider activity. Much of the flagged volume involved geopolitical contracts connected to Iran and Venezuela.

The findings did not establish that every identified trade involved unlawful conduct. They instead quantified the activity selected for closer examination as regulators assess whether prediction platforms can protect customers and prevent traders from exploiting nonpublic information.

Polymarket’s French challenge now places those concerns before a national court. Whatever the outcome, the case will determine whether ANJ’s website block stands while regulators in Europe and the United States pursue separate approaches to event-contract oversight.

“I don’t have any real political insights, but I expect that there is sufficient momentum behind this,” said Paul via WhatsApp. “And I believe that since this is now in the remit of the HM Treasury, Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, it doesn’t require much political intervention to proceed. If anything, I think this might support increased demand for U.K. debt at a convenient time for the U.K. government.”

Changing capital flows

Paul said moving sovereign debt onchain changes how capital flows through the financial system, making it more than a back-office adjustment. Natively digital bonds allow market participants to settle trades instantly and move collateral between venues without the delays of traditional market infrastructure.

This programmability alters the dynamics of intraday repo markets, a change that market participants believe could free up tens of billions of dollars in idle liquidity. Currently, the U.K. gilt market sees aggregate daily trading volumes exceeding 45 billion pounds.

However, one key obstacle remains: the lack of a standardized onchain payment method.

“Santander issued a tokenized corporate GBP-denominated bond way back in 2019, so we have been demonstrating that bonds can be tokenized for nearly seven years,” said Jannah Patchay, founder of Markets Evolution. “The challenge then, as now, was how to settle that bond on-chain using a counterparty risk-free settlement asset, and we do not yet have a compelling solution.”