More than 100 crypto firms and industry groups are pressing the U.S. Senate to advance long-delayed digital asset legislation, warning that continued inaction could drive innovation, talent, and capital outside the country. Their message is straightforward: without clear federal rules, the United States risks losing its position in the next phase of financial technology.
The effort took shape in a joint letter sent on April 23 by the Crypto Council for Innovation and the Blockchain Association. The letter urged the Senate Banking Committee to move forward with a markup of the Clarity Act, a bill designed to establish a comprehensive federal framework for digital assets rather than leaving the industry to navigate overlapping enforcement actions and uncertain legal interpretations.
According to reporting cited by Bitcoin Magazine, the letter was addressed to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis, and Ranking Member Ruben Gallego. The choice of recipients reflects a growing level of coordination across the crypto sector around a single legislative priority: regulatory clarity.
The coalition includes major names such as Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, and Circle, along with venture capital firms, developer organizations, and academic groups. That breadth matters. This is not a narrow lobbying campaign by a few exchanges or token issuers; it represents a wide cross-section of the digital asset ecosystem, from infrastructure builders to policy advocates and research institutions.
At the center of the push is a familiar but unresolved issue in the United States: the division of authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). For years, companies have operated in an environment where digital assets may be interpreted differently depending on the regulator, the product structure, or the context of enforcement. The coalition argues that this has produced what the industry describes as “regulation by enforcement.”
In practical terms, the signatories say agency action through litigation cannot create the durable and predictable framework needed for long-term investment. A lawsuit may establish pressure, but it does not provide a stable roadmap for founders, developers, trading venues, or institutional participants. That is why the coalition is asking Congress to put the rules into statute, covering digital asset classification, trading standards, and disclosure obligations in a way that can support long-term planning.
Why the Clarity Act has become the industry’s top legislative priority
The Clarity Act is viewed as central because it attempts to answer the most important structural questions in U.S. crypto regulation: who regulates which assets, under what authority, and by what compliance standards. Without those answers, businesses face legal ambiguity at nearly every step, from token design and listings to brokerage, custody, and market infrastructure. That uncertainty tends to slow product launches, raise legal costs, and discourage companies from scaling in the U.S.
The coalition’s argument is not that regulators have done nothing. Rather, it is that piecemeal oversight through investigations, settlements, and lawsuits is not a substitute for legislation. In a market as fast-moving as digital assets, inconsistent interpretation can be more damaging than strict but transparent rules. Firms can adapt to demanding standards if they know what those standards are. What they struggle with is a system in which jurisdiction is disputed and compliance expectations are often inferred only after enforcement begins.
For that reason, the letter urges the Senate Banking Committee to formally advance the bill through markup. Supporters believe legislation should explicitly define:
- how digital assets are classified under federal law;
- where SEC authority ends and CFTC authority begins;
- which trading rules should govern digital asset markets; and
- what disclosures issuers, intermediaries, and platforms must provide.
From the industry’s perspective, these questions are not merely technical legal matters. They directly affect whether capital formation, infrastructure buildout, and product development stay in the United States. The sectors most dependent on certainty are often not the most speculative parts of crypto, but the long-horizon parts: payments, custody, developer tooling, compliant market infrastructure, and institutional services.
Additional demands: developer protections, stablecoin rewards, and tailored disclosures
The letter also sets out several related priorities beyond the core market structure debate. One major issue is protection for developers building non-custodial technologies. In the coalition’s view, people who write open-source wallet software, protocol tools, or decentralized infrastructure should not automatically be treated as custodians or financial intermediaries simply because others use their code. That distinction is especially important in an industry where self-custody and neutral software are foundational concepts.
Another request concerns the preservation of consumer rewards linked to payment stablecoins. The signatories argue that as lawmakers design stablecoin rules, they should avoid eliminating reward structures that may support adoption in payment use cases. Incentives such as rewards or related user benefits can play a significant role in encouraging broader consumer participation and network growth.
The coalition also advocates for streamlined disclosure regimes tailored to blockchain-based assets. Traditional securities disclosure models were built for corporate issuers and may not map cleanly onto all digital asset networks. Applying them without modification could increase costs while failing to deliver the most relevant information for market participants. The industry is therefore asking for fit-for-purpose disclosure requirements that improve transparency without forcing every blockchain-based asset into an ill-suited legacy template.
Just as importantly, the letter warns against a fragmented state-by-state regime. If federal lawmakers do not create a unified standard, firms may have to navigate a patchwork of licenses, compliance obligations, and interpretive differences across individual states. That kind of fragmentation could materially raise operating costs, slow national market formation, and make the United States less competitive relative to jurisdictions offering a single coherent framework.
The fear that innovation will continue moving offshore
A major theme running through the letter is the belief that the United States is falling behind other jurisdictions that have already adopted comprehensive crypto frameworks. In that context, the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA) is frequently cited as a benchmark. For supporters of U.S. legislation, MiCA’s greatest advantage is not that it is necessarily lighter or tougher than American proposals, but that it provides legal certainty across EU member states.
That certainty matters. Companies deciding where to launch products, establish entities, or invest in compliance infrastructure often prefer a jurisdiction where the rules are known in advance. According to the coalition’s argument, MiCA has helped position the European Union as a more competitive hub for digital asset innovation precisely because businesses can better assess legal obligations before committing capital.
Ji Hun Kim, chief executive of the Crypto Council for Innovation, said the United States is at a “critical moment” in shaping the future of financial technology. He argued that Congress is not starting from zero. Bipartisan groundwork has already been laid, and related efforts such as the GENIUS Act on stablecoins suggest there is at least a foundation on which broader digital asset legislation can be built.
The coalition’s language is explicit: the United States cannot afford a return to the prior era of enforcement-led policymaking. In its view, market structure legislation would reduce uncertainty by creating clear jurisdictional boundaries, workable disclosure systems, and fit-for-purpose rules. For investors and builders alike, predictability is often more valuable than a temporarily permissive but unstable environment.
The Senate has not scheduled a markup, while pressure from Washington grows
Despite the urgency expressed by the coalition, the Senate Banking Committee has still not scheduled a markup of the Clarity Act. That delay leaves the sector in a holding pattern. Businesses continue to wait for federal lawmakers to define the contours of oversight, while negotiations over jurisdiction, disclosure, and supervisory design continue behind the scenes.
The issue gained further prominence when U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urged the Senate to pass the legislation during a hearing tied to Donald Trump’s FY2027 budget. Bessent argued that digital asset legislation is important not only for innovation policy, but also for maintaining U.S. financial leadership and preserving the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
He framed digital assets as both an economic and a national security issue. At the same time, he emphasized that regulatory clarity must be paired with stronger oversight tools, including AML and KYC frameworks. That position underscores a broader policy reality in Washington: the debate is not simply about whether to regulate crypto, but how to build a system that supports innovation while preserving compliance, market integrity, and law-enforcement visibility.
Lawmakers, however, remain divided. Competing legislative proposals, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act, still need to be reconciled before a unified approach can move forward. Bessent warned that unclear U.S. rules have already helped push crypto innovation abroad, but he also said bipartisan agreement remains achievable.
For now, the central question is no longer whether the industry wants action. It clearly does. The real question is whether the Senate will convert that pressure into formal legislative progress. If the current delay continues, the coalition’s warning that innovation will leave the United States may become less of a talking point and more of an observable trend.