Highlights
Despite bipartisan passage of the CLARITY Act in the House, implementation is on hold due to competing legislation (RFIA) and the lack of a Senate-confirmed CFTC Chair, leaving a key Trump-backed initiative in limbo.
The EU’s MiCA framework has set existing precedents for firms with concrete rules for issuers, distinguishing between technical token creation and actual control, with stricter oversight for centralized issuers like stablecoin operators.
In both the U.S. and EU, determining “who counts as an issuer” is central, affecting liability, compliance and market positioning. While the U.S. debates “mature blockchains,” Europe already enforces issuer-focused rules.
Industry observers could be forgiven for believing crypto regulation in the U.S. was moving from the abstract to the operational. It at least once seemed that way given the successful GENIUS Act momentum.
Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.
yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.
By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.
But the GENIUS Act’s sister bill, the CLARITY Act, has been stumbling ever since its bipartisan passage by the House in July with a vote of 294-134.
So, what’s the problem?
Aside from a competing framework, the Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA), introduced by the Senate Banking Committee with a sharper emphasis on Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight; the main reason the CLARITY Act is being held up is the simple fact that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), under which crypto market oversight would fall, is still in search of a Senate-confirmed chairman.
Implementation of the CLARITY Act, a key tentpole in Donald Trump’s promise to make America the “crypto capital of the world,” would require robust leadership at the CFTC. But because the chairman has yet to be confirmed, the agency is operating at reduced capacity and could risk lacking a quorum or even basic leadership during a phase when the burden of regulatory change will be heavy.
Brian Quintenz, Trump’s nominee, has reportedly run afoul of politically powerful crypto executives who are alleged to be holding up his path to the CFTC chair.
Advertisement: Scroll to Continue
Senate committees are under pressure to pass the CLARITY Act before the end of the year, in part because the political conditions may shift after elections. A delay into 2026 could make passage of a crypto markets bill more challenging.
For the crypto industry, which is global, coherence matters. Investors, institutions and exchanges do not operate purely domestically. Regulatory arbitrage is ever present: Firms will locate, list or structure their products in jurisdictions with clearer, more favorable rule.
For issuers in particular, the uncertainty clouding the U.S. is particularly disadvantageous because it leaves one of the world’s most liquid markets in limbo as other major regions, like the European Union, set their own regulatory precedents around crypto markets.
Read also: New US Stablecoin Reserve Rules Could Upend Crypto’s Biggest Players
When the European Union’s landmark Markets in Crypto-Assets Act (MiCA) framework was first finalized and enacted, it was heralded as the first comprehensive attempt by a major jurisdiction to put crypto on a legal footing. That moment was less about setting hard boundaries on technology than it was about pinning responsibility on people. The central question regulators kept circling was deceptively simple: Who, exactly, counts as the “issuer” of a crypto asset?
The answer matters because it anchors liability, disclosure requirements, and enforcement risk.
In equities, issuers are easy to identify: A corporation files with regulators, lists shares, and makes required disclosures. In crypto, it’s more ambiguous. Sometimes a startup mints a batch of tokens to fund its business. Sometimes a decentralized community coordinates to build an open-source protocol, where no single party can plausibly be called “in charge.” Sometimes a digital asset is managed by a consortium with multiple actors holding the keys.
Passed or in final phases of implementation by EU institutions, MiCA crystallizes into law the once-vague question of “who is responsible” for tokens and crypto assets.
MiCA divides crypto assets into several categories: e-money tokens (EMTs), asset-referenced tokens (ARTs), other crypto assets (OCAs). It regulates issuances, offers to the public, admission to trading of these assets, and establishes rules for service providers and market abuse.
Importantly, MiCA’s definitions turn on control by identifiable issuers, rather than merely on technical issuance mechanisms. For instance, decentralized protocols with no identifiable issuer may be exempt from certain requirements; centralized entities that control minting, distribution and governance are clearly brought in.
The framework in effect draws a bright line between “issuance” as a technical act and “issuance” as a function of control. Pressing the button that creates tokens is less important than holding the administrative or governance levers that shape a token’s economics.
This is particularly relevant for stablecoins, where the promise of price stability relies on reserves managed by a corporate entity. MiCA requires issuers of “asset-referenced tokens” or “e-money tokens” to comply with banking-like rules. That puts the spotlight on control rather than on the technical process of token creation.
Read more: From Ledgers to Layers: The Enterprise CFO’s Blockchain Map
The U.S. is still in the throes of defining what a crypto issuer is. The SEC has often leaned on the Howey Test, treating many tokens as securities. Yet Congress is beginning to carve out legislative clarity.
The proposed CLARITY Act introduces the notion of a “mature blockchain.” Under this framework, an asset is no longer tied to an “issuer” once it meets certain criteria around control, value and ownership.
These distinctions may sound like legal hair-splitting. But for companies evaluating blockchain use cases, whether in supply chain tracking, loyalty programs, or digital assets, the definition of issuer carries material consequences.
Senate negotiations are underway, as both the agriculture and banking committees try to meet a September deadline set by White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks, along with Sens. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyom. The industry and administration want to avoid it being punted to 2026, when midterm elections may make it even harder to pass major legislation.
A confirmed CFTC chair is seen as indispensable for the act’s successful rollout.
Industry sentiment overwhelmingly favors Quintenz, with seven D.C. crypto associations sending a letter to President Trump in late August emphasizing “strong support for your nomination of Mr. Brian Quintenz … and the need for his expeditious confirmation by the United States Senate.” However, Bloomberg recently reported that the White House is vetting other candidates.
Indeed, last Friday, a dozen Democratic senators released a framework for market structure that recommended it “require that commissioners from both parties sit at the SEC and CFTC to create a quorum for digital asset rulemakings.” It also noted, “President Trump has fired countless Democratic commissioners from independent regulatory agencies and shown little interest in nominating new officials.”
Trump’s Crypto Rulemaking Hits Wall Without CFTC Chief
FICO Debuts Tools to Prevent Gen AI Hallucinations
Amazon Closing UK Grocery Stores Amid Rising Online Demand
Morgan Stanley’s E-Trade to Add Crypto Trading in Early 2026
We’re always on the lookout for opportunities to partner with innovators and disruptors.