The U.S. crypto market-structure bill that Galaxy Research flagged as facing “remaining regulatory hurdles” is almost certainly the CLARITY Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that has been stuck in Senate negotiations since January. With key disputes over DeFi treatment, stablecoin rewards, and tokenized securities still unresolved, the path to a final vote keeps narrowing.
Which Bill Is Galaxy Research Talking About?
The original headline does not name the specific legislation. But the timing and subject matter point squarely at the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as H.R. 3633, the House-passed bill that became the foundation for the Senate Banking Committee’s own market-structure discussion draft released on July 22, 2025.
Senate Banking Republicans described their draft as building on the CLARITY Act’s framework. This is distinct from the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin-focused bill that has moved through a separate legislative track. Conflating the two, as many outlets do, obscures where the real bottleneck sits.
Galaxy Research analyst Alex Thorn wrote in a January 16, 2026 research note that “the path forward for the bill is narrower but not closed.” That assessment came just one day after the Senate Banking Committee officially postponed its planned markup of H.R. 3633.
Why the Senate Process Remains Stuck
The Committee had scheduled a markup of the CLARITY Act for January 15, 2026. It was called off the day before.
Chairman Tim Scott issued a statement on January 14 explaining the decision: “The Committee will postpone its markup of digital asset market structure legislation as bipartisan negotiations continue.” The phrasing signaled that the bill was not dead, but that disagreements had proven too deep to resolve on the original timeline.
More than two months later, the bill has not returned to the Senate calendar. Axios reported on March 19, 2026 that market-structure legislation remained stalled, held up in part by a fight between banks and crypto firms over whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to pay yield to holders.
The delay matters for the broader crypto regulatory landscape because market-structure legislation would define which digital assets are securities, which are commodities, and how DeFi protocols fit into the existing regulatory framework. Without it, the SEC and CFTC continue to operate under competing interpretations that leave the industry in legal limbo.
Four Regulatory Fights Still Blocking a Deal
Galaxy’s January research note identified four specific disputes preventing agreement. These are not abstract policy debates; each one has concrete implications for how crypto markets would operate under federal law.
1. Tokenized securities. The bill must decide how traditional securities issued on blockchains are regulated. Banks want tokenized assets to remain under existing securities law. Crypto firms argue that blockchain-native tokens need a lighter framework. The Senate discussion draft left this boundary deliberately vague, and Galaxy flagged it as a core sticking point.
This fight over token classification echoes broader questions about how governments worldwide are approaching digital assets. Brazil recently shelved its own crypto tax consultation, illustrating how regulators in multiple jurisdictions are struggling to find workable frameworks.
2. DeFi treatment. The Senate Banking Committee’s own request for information explicitly asked stakeholders how decentralized finance should be handled under the new law. That question appearing in an official RFI confirms it was unresolved during the drafting process, and it remains unresolved now.
3. Stablecoin rewards. The RFI also asked whether legislation should “limit or prohibit rewards on digital assets including stablecoins.” This is the issue Axios identified as the primary flashpoint between banks and crypto companies. Banks see stablecoin yield as unfair competition with deposit accounts. Crypto firms see it as a core product feature.
4. Title III compliance language. The official discussion draft includes provisions on illicit-finance controls and sanctions compliance. Galaxy’s note identified the scope of these requirements, grouped under Title III, as another unresolved area. The question is how far compliance obligations extend, particularly for decentralized protocols that have no central operator.
What Comes Next
No new markup date has been announced as of March 22, 2026. The Senate Banking Committee’s last public update was Chairman Scott’s January 14 statement, and the bipartisan negotiations he referenced have not produced a visible breakthrough.
Galaxy’s assessment that the path is “narrower but not closed” remains the most precise characterization available. The core market-structure provisions, defining which agency oversees which tokens, appear to have broad support. But the four disputed areas touch powerful interests on both sides.
For market participants watching legislative risk, the key signal will be whether the Committee reschedules a markup before the current congressional session’s window narrows further. Major crypto assets like Bitcoin, which advocates like Michael Saylor continue to champion, trade partly on expectations about regulatory clarity that this bill would provide.
The crypto industry’s push for comprehensive regulation has also drawn attention to adjacent sectors. Solana-based gaming projects, for example, would be directly affected by how the CLARITY Act defines token utility versus security status.
Until those four fights resolve, the bill stays where it has been since January: stuck in the Senate, with bipartisan support in principle but no agreement on the details that matter most.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
