It wasn’t just gender that set Hargitay apart from those predecessors, though. She was also the Emmys’ first emcee not known primarily for her comedy work since 2008, when the five first-ever nominees in a new reality-TV-hosting category, including Ryan Seacrest and Heidi Klum, delivered what critics agreed was one of the worst ceremonies in history. Hargitay is, of course, synonymous with Olivia Benson, the heroic sex-crimes investigator she has portrayed in NBC’s Law & Order: SVU since its 1999 premiere. What casual fans might not have known is that she trained with legendary improv troupe the Groundlings and appeared in sitcoms like Seinfeld; “all I wanted to be was you,” she told Amy Poehler on the latter’s podcast, Good Hang. Hargitay also went into the gig with lots of goodwill from audiences inside the Peacock Theater and at home. Not only is she an advocate for survivors of sexual violence, on screen and off; she’s also in the midst of a pop-culture renaissance, having won two Emmys for the documentary she directed about her famous mom, Jayne Mansfield, conquered the one-woman play Every Brilliant Thing on Broadway, and endeared herself to Knicks fans as a stalwart supporter on the sidelines of this year’s NBA Finals. In light of all this, Variety dubbed her “a national best friend.”

The U.S. Senate is set to hold a crucial procedural vote Tuesday on the CLARITY Act, a major piece of proposed legislation aimed at reshaping how the federal government regulates digital assets and clarifying how crypto fits within existing securities and commodities frameworks.

While recent talks around ethics restrictions for public officials appear to have moved the bill closer to action—after President Donald Trump agreed to much of a bipartisan proposal—opposition from a coalition of state attorneys general is threatening to complicate momentum. In a letter led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, 18 state AGs urged senators to reject the bill, arguing that the compromise does not fully address concerns about undermining state oversight of crypto-related misconduct.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Act faces a Senate procedural vote Tuesday that will decide whether it advances to full Senate debate.
• Trump’s reported agreement to roughly “80%” of a bipartisan ethics proposal would tighten disclosure and divestment rules for officials with significant crypto interests.
• A coalition of 18 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James, says the bill’s language could weaken states’ ability to pursue crypto fraud and misconduct.
• Despite changes that would include state AG involvement in enforcement of ethics restrictions, the AGs contend other provisions may still restrict state police powers.

A Senate procedural hurdle looms

Tuesday’s vote is not a final decision on the merits of the CLARITY Act, but it is an important gatekeeping step. As reported by Cointelegraph, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion on the bill last month after lawmakers did not move it forward before leaving Washington for the August recess.

In practical terms, the procedural vote will determine whether senators can proceed to debate. For market participants and legal stakeholders, that matters because the CLARITY Act is designed to establish a clearer federal structure for digital asset regulation—especially by delineating when assets are treated under securities law versus commodities law—and by defining the roles of the SEC and the CFTC.

Trump’s reported ethics deal reshapes the bill

The latest complication comes from the intersection of ethics rules and enforcement authority. According to the Associated Press, Trump agreed to about “80%” of a proposal from Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, citing a senior GOP aide.

The bill already barred federally elected officials, their spouses, and federal judges from issuing digital assets. The reported compromise would increase the requirements for officials with a “significant” financial interest in a crypto issuer—requiring divestment or placement of that interest into a blind trust.

It also expands the practical enforcement footprint by giving state attorneys general a role in enforcing the new ethics restrictions. The changes are intended to address concerns raised by Democrats and Tillis, who argued earlier provisions were not stringent enough to handle potential conflicts involving Trump’s crypto holdings and business interests.

Crypto in America, a publication co-hosted by Eleanor Terrett, described the weekend developments as sparking renewed optimism in parts of the industry, framing the revised package as Republicans’ effort to move Democrats toward agreement ahead of Tuesday’s procedural vote.

State attorneys general oppose—citing enforcement and federal-state tension

Even as ethics provisions appear to have gained ground, a coordinated state-level challenge has emerged. In a letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders, 18 state attorneys general—led by Letitia James—argued that the CLARITY Act could make it harder for states to take action against crypto companies accused of fraud or other misconduct.

The AG coalition warned that while the bill reserves “certain powers” for states to prosecute fraud, the letter claims the language is ambiguous and unclear in ways that could allow challenges to states’ police powers or limit states’ ability to combat what the signatories characterize as a “scam epidemic.”

They also argue the structure of enforcement is not balanced. Although the updated bill would give state attorneys general a role in enforcing the new ethics restrictions, the AGs contend other provisions could still weaken their broader authority over crypto-related wrongdoing.

For legislators and watchers of U.S. regulatory federalism, this is the core tension: a bill designed to bring order to federal oversight and define agency responsibilities may still be perceived as constraining state prosecutors. The AG letter suggests that even modest statutory adjustments can create new litigation risks or narrowing interpretations—issues that can materially affect how quickly and effectively states can pursue alleged misconduct.

The letter is the clearest signal so far that the opposition is not only political but also legal and jurisdictional, setting up a potential debate over where responsibility should sit when both federal agencies and state officials can pursue different—but sometimes overlapping—enforcement theories.

The letter from the AG coalition

Why the CLARITY Act matters beyond the ethics fight

While Tuesday’s vote will be heavily discussed through the lens of ethics rules, the CLARITY Act’s significance extends well beyond that. The bill is widely described as a landmark effort to set a federal market structure for digital assets, including clearer guidance on the SEC versus CFTC divide.

That regulatory clarity is a key reason the legislation has been closely watched by market participants. For exchanges, custodians, token issuers, and financial institutions, regulatory uncertainty can directly translate into compliance costs, delayed product launches, and increased legal risk. For consumers, clearer rules are also intended to reduce the gray area that can be exploited by bad actors.

However, the state AGs’ concerns highlight a practical reality: even when federal law aims to coordinate oversight, states still play a crucial role in enforcing fraud and consumer protection. If the CLARITY Act’s drafting leaves room for arguments that states’ enforcement authority is curtailed or constrained, it could create a parallel track of legal fights—potentially slowing enforcement even if the bill ultimately advances.

As a result, investors and builders should not interpret Tuesday’s procedural vote as only a referendum on ethics provisions. It is also a test of whether senators are willing to move forward on a comprehensive framework while leaving unresolved questions about federal-state enforcement boundaries.

What to watch next is whether the Senate procedural vote clears Tuesday and, if it does, whether state AG objections shape the debate during full chamber consideration—particularly around how the bill’s provisions could affect states’ ability to pursue crypto fraud cases while the SEC and CFTC roles are being clarified.

Balancer, a decentralized exchange and automated market maker, has proposed winding down the protocol after its post-exploit restructuring failed to generate enough revenue, with its leader saying he underestimated how much a $128 million exploit in November would continue to weigh on adoption. 

The proposal was authored by Balancer Labs CEO Marcus Hardt and published on the Balancer governance forum on Monday. It calls for an orderly wind-down of the protocol and the distribution of its remaining treasury, currently worth more than $9 million, to BAL tokenholders.

The proposal comes after Balancer Labs shut down in March, when executives opted to continue operating the protocol under a leaner structure. Hardt said Monday that while the restructuring succeeded in cutting costs and delivering the products promised to tokenholders, the revenue side of the plan fell short, echoing profitability challenges faced by several other DeFi protocols this year. 

“What did not come was enough revenue. Most of the protocol’s revenue still comes from v2, and v3 revenue has not grown to replace it. The product worked. It did not sell enough,” Hardt said in a statement on X. 

Data from DefiLlama show that Balancer’s monthly protocol revenue fell to $371,000 in November from $1.13 million in October after an exploit affecting composable stable pools on its legacy v2 protocol. Revenue continued to trend downward into 2026, with August revenue at just $56,781. 

“The November 2025 exploit hit legacy v2 pools. v3 is a different architecture, but the event followed the name into every conversation since and made traction harder to build,” Hardt said on the Balancer forum. 

“I underestimated how much the exploit would continue to limit adoption,” he added in a separate post on X. 

Balancer wind-down proposal

Under the proposal, Balancer would begin a phased shutdown next month, with new business development ending and liquidity providers given until Oct. 30 to prepare to exit the protocol. Meanwhile, pools that can be paused would move to withdrawal-only, while those that can’t be paused will continue working but have the protocol fee set to zero where contracts allow it. 

From Nov. 1, Balancer would operate only the minimal infrastructure needed to support withdrawals, and the DAO would be wound down, with a small team to manage the transition. The proposal sets aside up to $400,000 for the wind-down process.

Related: Balancer Labs shuts down 4 months after $100M+ exploit, protocol to continue

BAL holders would receive the remaining treasury on a pro-rata basis, with the first distribution scheduled for May 2027, when holders would burn their BAL in exchange for their share of the treasury assets. 

A second distribution would return unspent wind-down funds, unclaimed assets from the first distribution, followed by a “final sweep” six months later. 

Hardt said delaying a wind-down would eat into the treasury without changing the ultimate outcome.  

“Continuing on the current path spends the treasury to arrive at the same place later. That treasury belongs to BAL holders. The question is whether what remains reaches holders while it is still substantial, or is spent first on a path that has already been tried,” he said. 

The wind-down requires approval from BAL holders, with a snapshot vote scheduled for Sept. 25 to 29. A rejection would leave Balance’s existing operating framework in place. 

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

The CLARITY Act is set to face a pivotal procedural vote in the US Senate on Tuesday after President Donald Trump agreed to most of a bipartisan package aimed at tightening ethics rules for federal officials with crypto-related interests, according to multiple reports. The bill is designed to create a federal framework for how digital-asset markets are regulated, including clearer lines between the SEC and the CFTC.

Yet the latest compromise has not softened all opposition. A bipartisan group of 18 state attorneys general is urging senators to reject the legislation, arguing that the bill’s changes would undermine state authority to investigate and take action against crypto companies accused of fraud or other misconduct.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Act is moving toward a Senate procedural vote that will decide whether it advances to full debate.
• President Trump’s reported agreement to most of a bipartisan ethics proposal would tighten conflict-of-interest rules for certain federal officials.
• 18 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James, say the bill’s language could weaken state enforcement against alleged crypto fraud.
• The bill remains a major effort to establish federal market-structure rules and clarify whether crypto assets are treated as securities or commodities.

State attorneys general raise enforcement concerns

In a letter to Senate Banking Committee leaders, the 18 attorneys general—led by New York Attorney General Letitia James—contend that the CLARITY Act could constrain states’ ability to police wrongdoing in the crypto sector.

They argue that, although the “current draft” reserves certain powers for states to prosecute fraud, the provisions are “often ambiguous, unclear, or confined” in ways that could enable challenges to state law-enforcement authority or restrict how aggressively states can continue addressing what they describe as a “scam epidemic.” The letter does not suggest that states would be completely removed from enforcement, but it emphasizes that ambiguity may invite legal fights and limit practical oversight.

Importantly for observers watching the balance of power between federal and state regulators, the attorneys general also claim that while the revised bill would assign state attorneys general a role in enforcing new federal ethics restrictions, other provisions would still reduce their broader authority to pursue cases against crypto firms.

The dispute highlights a recurring tension in US crypto policy: even when legislators align on market structure and ethics rules, the details of how enforcement responsibilities are carved up—across agencies and between federal and state authorities—can determine whether regulators can act quickly and effectively.

Tuesday’s Senate procedural vote after Thune’s cloture push

As discussed earlier by Cointelegraph, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion last month after the legislation failed to advance before lawmakers left Washington for their August recess. The procedural vote on Tuesday will determine whether the bill can move forward to Senate debate.

Cloture motions are typically used to limit debate and overcome procedural hurdles. For supporters and opponents alike, Tuesday’s vote functions as a forcing event: it decides whether the CLARITY Act clears the next step of the legislative process, regardless of remaining disagreements over its content.

Trump’s reported ethics concession reshapes key conflict-of-interest rules

Separate from the state attorneys general’s concerns, reports over the weekend indicated the White House had agreed to “about 80%” of a proposal developed by Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego, according to the Associated Press. The AP reported that this agreement came from a senior GOP aide.

The ethics portion of the CLARITY Act would build on rules already contained in the bill barring federally elected officials, their spouses, and federal judges from issuing digital assets. The latest compromise, as described by the Associated Press, would also require officials with a “significant” financial interest in a crypto issuer to divest the interest or place it in a blind trust. The measure would additionally give state attorneys general a role in enforcing the restrictions.

Lawmakers framed the adjustment as a response to concerns from Democrats and from Tillis, who had argued earlier ethics provisions did not go far enough to address potential conflicts, including those relating to President Trump’s own crypto holdings and business interests.

Crypto industry reaction was described as cautiously positive by Crypto in America, a publication co-hosted by Eleanor Terrett, which said the weekend developments triggered a “renewed sense of optimism” across the sector. Republicans characterized the revised package as their “last, best and final offer” to Democrats ahead of Tuesday’s vote, according to Crypto in America.

Still, the state attorneys general’s letter suggests that tightening ethics rules for federal officials does not automatically resolve broader concerns about the bill’s impact on state enforcement authority in crypto-related fraud and misconduct cases.

Why the CLARITY Act matters beyond ethics provisions

While the ethics dispute is dominating the immediate political storyline, the CLARITY Act’s larger purpose is to reshape the US regulatory landscape for digital assets. The bill is widely characterized as a landmark effort that would establish a federal market structure for digital assets, clarify when crypto assets fall within securities or commodities frameworks, and delineate oversight responsibilities between the SEC and the CFTC.

For market participants, those jurisdictional clarifications can have practical consequences. When regulators’ roles are less contested or more clearly defined, compliance decisions—such as how new products should be structured and supervised—can become less uncertain. When they are not, firms may face overlapping or conflicting expectations, and regulators may pursue different theories of authority.

The current round of opposition underscores that even large, bipartisan bills can remain politically vulnerable if key stakeholders believe enforcement power will shift in the wrong direction. Tuesday’s procedural vote will therefore reflect not only whether lawmakers accept the ethics adjustments, but also whether they are willing to move forward despite active legal and federalism concerns raised by state leaders.

Next, readers should watch for how senators respond to the state AG letter once the chamber turns to further debate—particularly whether amendments address claims of ambiguity that could limit states’ ability to investigate alleged crypto fraud, or whether the bill moves on essentially unchanged toward the full legislative process.