Majority Leader John Thune has moved the US Senate toward a potential September vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, using a cloture filing that would allow the sweeping crypto market-structure bill to be considered on the Senate floor. The measure is now set to face a tight procedural and legislative timeline once lawmakers return from a month-long recess.

However, the path to final passage remains uncertain. Senate Democrats and industry stakeholders have flagged key sticking points—including proposed ethics-related language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital-asset connections and additional limits on how crypto firms may offer stablecoin rewards. Even if cloture happens in September, the Senate could still have only limited time to resolve outstanding disputes before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election.

Key takeaways

• Thune filed for cloture on the CLARITY Act shortly before the Senate’s August recess, setting up a possible September floor push.
• After lawmakers return on Sept. 14, they would have 14 scheduled session days before another recess tied to the November election calendar.
• Major unresolved issues include ethics provisions involving President Trump’s digital-asset ties and restrictions on stablecoin-reward offerings.
• If the Senate misses its window, election-year dynamics could further complicate negotiations during the next Congress.

A narrow procedural window after the September return

The Senate is expected to return from recess on Sept. 14, with only 14 days scheduled to be in session before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election. After that pre-election recess, lawmakers would face another gap—followed by additional time before the end of the year—meaning the practical window for resolving disputes over the CLARITY Act could be measured in weeks rather than months.

Thune’s cloture filing is a procedural step that can bring a bill closer to floor consideration, but it does not settle the substantive questions that have delayed action. According to reporting referenced by Cointelegraph, lawmakers had not publicly announced deals on several provisions that remain contentious.

The stakes for market participants are straightforward: CLARITY is intended to create clearer market-structure rules for digital assets by setting out how responsibilities should be allocated across regulators. Without the bill’s passage, companies and exchanges are left navigating a patchwork of existing regulatory approaches and enforcement-driven expectations.

Why the Senate’s unresolved provisions matter

At the center of the political friction are provisions that would shape the compliance landscape and business models for parts of the crypto industry.

Cointelegraph’s coverage notes that the Senate version of the CLARITY Act has drawn attention to ethics language linked to President Trump’s digital-asset ties. Opponents have previously described the measure as enabling “crypto corruption,” a critique that contributed to scrutiny of earlier versions and broader resistance from many Democrats during the bill’s protracted journey.

Another major point of contention involves additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards. Stablecoin incentives have become a common customer-acquisition and retention tool in parts of decentralized and centralized finance, and limits in this area could affect how issuers and platforms structure programs, marketing, and risk disclosures.

Even if cloture is secured in September, lawmakers would still need time to address these unresolved elements before a potential floor vote—and the calendar may not provide enough runway to find compromises acceptable to both chambers.

How election-year uncertainty could reshape negotiations

The CLARITY Act has already taken more than a year to travel through Congress after the House passed it last year. During that period, the Senate faced multiple disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, along with sustained pushback from within the political system and from industry leaders. Opposition has also been fueled by concerns about conflicts of interest and the ethics framework attached to the legislation, as described in earlier coverage referenced by Cointelegraph.

Looking ahead, a procedural setback in September could carry consequences beyond simple delay. After November, 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election. Election outcomes can significantly affect committee priorities, legislative bandwidth, and which members remain in office—potentially slowing or resetting negotiations into the next Congress.

For investors and operators, election-year uncertainty can be more than a political inconvenience. Regulatory clarity delays often translate into longer periods of compliance experimentation, more reliance on legal interpretations and agency guidance, and greater sensitivity to enforcement risk—even when market activity continues.

Regulators may fill the gap if Congress stalls

With the legislation back in limbo, some market participants are turning their attention to federal agencies—particularly the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—for regulatory signals and rulemaking momentum.

Cointelegraph’s cited reporting indicates that the legislation would be expected to give the CFTC more authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. Still, the broader point for the crypto sector is practical: if lawmakers do not finalize CLARITY, agencies have indicated they can move forward through their own rulemaking or enforcement frameworks.

In a July interview highlighted by Cointelegraph, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress failed to pass CLARITY. Separately, Cointelegraph cited statements from CFTC Chair Michael Selig in April indicating that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for oversight—referring to the expectation of legislative passage that would clarify roles.

Both agencies have also reportedly taken steps to coordinate oversight of financial markets, according to Cointelegraph’s reference to a memo describing efforts to align regulatory approaches. That coordination matters because market structure rules can otherwise become fragmented—leading to inconsistent treatment depending on which regulator asserts primary jurisdiction.

In other words, even without CLARITY, market participants may not be waiting in a vacuum. The question is whether agencies’ actions will provide the kind of stability that a comprehensive market-structure law is designed to deliver.

For now, the most important thing to watch is whether the Senate can convert Thune’s cloture filing into actual floor movement during the post–Sept. 14 schedule—while negotiations continue over ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions; if that narrow window closes, both the political calendar and regulator-driven rulemaking could become the main determinants of how quickly compliance expectations evolve.

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed separate civil lawsuits against Goliath Ventures and founder Christopher Delgado over an alleged crypto Ponzi scheme that raised about $400 million. 

The SEC said Goliath raised at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through an unregistered securities offering. Investors were told their money would be placed in crypto liquidity pools, but the agency alleged none of the funds or crypto assets were invested and Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. 

In a separate action, the CFTC said approximately 1,600 customers contributed at least $397 million after Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agency is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. 

The actions add securities and commodities-law consequences to a criminal case that has already produced a guilty plea, allowing the agencies to seek investor compensation, penalties and market bans beyond the consequences available through Delgado’s plea.

Delgado agrees to settle SEC case 

According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns of 3% to 10%, generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools, while guaranteeing investors’ principal. The complaint alleges the company instead used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to pay earlier investors and fabricated account balances and performance metrics. 

The SEC said Goliath paid commissions to sales agents who recruited investors. By November 2025, the company could no longer raise money quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions and collapsed, according to the agency. 

Related: ‘I failed them’: Goliath Ventures CEO charged with crypto Ponzi apologizes

Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval, that would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. He would also be barred from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer. The court will determine disgorgement, prejudgment interest and a civil penalty. 

Delgado previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. On June 30, the US Department of Justice said at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. He also agreed to forfeit properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme. 

Magazine: Japanese pension fund tips 1% in crypto, G7 urges action on NK hackers: Asia Express

Aster has activated AOS-2, requiring projects to stake 1 million ASTER for four years before validators can approve a new perpetual market.

AOS-2 opens Aster perpetual listings to applicants

Aster said in an Aug. 11 X post that the standard replaces private listing talks with a public process built around token staking, validator votes, and on-chain records.

Under AOS-2, a project must first meet Aster’s eligibility conditions and stake 1 million ASTER before it can submit a perpetual market proposal. The tokens remain locked for four years, and the applicant cannot leave the program early once the lock begins.

Eligible proposals then move to an on-chain validator vote. Approval does not immediately activate trading because Aster’s risk-control team must first configure the contract and assign the market’s operating parameters.

Once that process is complete, Aster plans to list the perpetual contract on T+1, meaning the next day after the required market setup. The announcement does not state whether T+1 refers to a calendar day or a business day.

A rejected application does not lose its deposit. According to the AOS-2 rules, Aster will return the full 1 million ASTER stake if validators vote against the listing. The announcement does not say how long the voting period lasts, what share of validator support is needed, or when the returned tokens become available.

The four-year lock therefore applies to successful applicants rather than serving as a listing fee. Aster did not disclose whether the locked tokens earn staking rewards, carry governance rights beyond the listing vote, or become subject to penalties if a listed project later fails to meet platform rules.

Aster keeps control of leverage and market risk

Although validators decide whether a proposed market can proceed, Aster’s risk-control system retains authority over leverage and other contract settings. The platform said those rules will be public and each decision will be recorded on-chain.

Risk settings are central to a perpetual contract because traders can maintain leveraged long or short positions without an expiration date. The exchange must set parameters covering margin requirements, liquidation levels, and the amount of leverage available, although Aster’s announcement did not list the exact factors its team will use.

The model divides responsibility between validators and the platform. Token holders participating in validation decide whether an eligible market should receive approval, while Aster determines how the contract will operate once it reaches the listing stage.

AOS-2 follows AOS-1, which opened spot-token listings to projects meeting published conditions. The latest standard applies the same public-entry approach to perpetual contracts, a market where Aster said listings have traditionally depended on private negotiations between projects and exchanges.

Aster has already used direct partnerships to add perpetual markets. In April, crypto.news reported its GENIUS listing, which made the exchange the first decentralized venue to offer a GENIUS perpetual contract.

The April arrangement also included a $200,000 ASTER trading reward pool and followed Aster’s partnership with the Genius trading platform. Under AOS-2, eligible projects now have a stated route to apply without depending solely on a privately arranged partnership.

AOS-2 gives ASTER another staking function

Requiring 1 million ASTER for every application adds a new use for the platform’s native token. The size of the requirement also means the cost of applying will change with ASTER’s market price, even though the number of tokens remains fixed.

Aster has not stated whether applicants may delegate the stake, obtain the tokens through third parties or submit a joint application. Its Aug. 11 announcement also did not disclose whether multiple proposals from the same organization would each require a separate 1 million-token lock.

The requirement arrives after Aster connected ASTER more closely to platform revenue. On June 17, the protocol said it would use 99% of daily fees for open-market token purchases and remove an equal amount from its reserves.

As previously covered on crypto.news, Aster also planned to reduce total supply from 8 billion to 3 billion ASTER through reserve burns. Purchased tokens were assigned to its Loyalty Rewards program, where distribution goes to veASTER holders according to their lock-weighted participation.

Aster separately imposed a 50,000 USDT charge for permissionless spot listings, with the proceeds directed toward ASTER purchases and rewards for stakers. AOS-2 uses a different structure because the perpetual-market deposit is returned when validators reject a proposal and remains locked when the application succeeds.

The staking rule comes as decentralized perpetual exchanges take a larger share of derivatives activity. CoinGecko’s 2026 Crypto Perpetuals Report found that perp DEXs increased their share of open interest from 3.6% in early 2025 to 13.5% in early 2026, according to coverage published in May.

CoinGecko also reported that top perp DEX open interest rose from $1.19 billion at the start of 2024 to $14.99 billion by the end of January 2026. Centralized exchanges still controlled most activity, with Binance and OKX accounting for 33% and 15% of the market during the first four months of 2026.

U.S. users face separate derivatives rules

AOS-2 changes how markets reach Aster, but it does not, by itself, decide who may legally trade the resulting contracts. Access for U.S. residents depends on federal derivatives rules and the platform’s geographic restrictions.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates U.S. commodity futures, options, and swaps through registered entities, including designated contract markets and derivatives clearing organizations. The agency has also brought cases against offshore platforms accused of offering leveraged crypto derivatives to U.S. customers without registration.

In May 2026, the CFTC approved a Bitcoin perpetual futures contract for listing on a registered U.S. exchange and issued staff advisories covering continuous trading, clearing, and settlement, according to an updated CFTC regulation guide. The agency’s action concerned a regulated domestic product and did not provide general approval for U.S. customers to use offshore perpetual platforms.

Aster’s Aug. 11 announcement did not address U.S. availability, registration with the CFTC, or country-level access rules for markets approved through AOS-2. It also did not identify the assets that may qualify, publish an initial list of applicants, or disclose when the first validator vote will begin.

Aster said AOS-3 will follow AOS-2, but the exchange has not announced what the next standard will cover or when its rules will take effect.