The rejection of the U.S. Clarity Act was merely a procedural issue, and the will to reach an agreement remains. Efforts to resolve regulatory uncertainty surrounding stablecoins are expected to continue.
Republicans presented an amendment on Sunday night, and Democrats made a counter-proposal on Monday night, but it was rejected. Despite leading to final rejection, analysis suggests that discussions have not completely ceased, as both parties recognize the need to process the bill.
It is known that Senator Thom Tillis intentionally cast a 'no' vote at the last minute to allow for reconsideration of the bill. This is because, under U.S. congressional procedure, only the side that voted 'no' can request reconsideration. Reconsideration can pass with a simple majority vote.
While reconsideration can pass with a majority, actual bill passage requires 60 votes. There is a realistic hurdle of securing more than ten additional votes overnight. While theoretically possible, securing votes requires significant political effort.
It is a tight schedule, with all voting needing to be completed by 3 PM local time on the 17th. In essence, only about 40 hours remained.
One of the main points of contention in the bill's amendment is the contradiction between promoting prediction markets and existing gambling laws. Concerns have been raised that gambling laws designed to protect the resources of Native American tribes could be circumvented if prediction markets are activated. Democrats are demanding the establishment of legal safeguards if prediction markets are activated, and the effectiveness of this aspect has emerged as a key focus of discussion.
Whether the Trump side would accept this expanded scope was a crucial factor in reaching an agreement overnight.
This clause was not part of previous discussions and is not expected to be a major obstacle to the bill's passage.
Furthermore, the impact of deposit outflows was analyzed as very minimal. This highlights the conflict between the concerns of community banks and efficiency of profits.
While an agreement could be reached in a short period, whether Democrats and Republicans are willing to finalize this matter this week is a separate issue. A scenario where it is processed during the lame-duck session, from November 9th to January 3rd after the midterm elections, is considered an ever-present possibility.
With Democrats having the upper hand in negotiations, concessions from Republicans are essential, and considering the potential negative impact on elections, it is unlikely that Democrats would completely reject the bill.
Community banks are demanding a complete ban, and setting standards and scope for token holder activities has emerged as a detailed point of contention. Criticism has been raised that this part is very ambiguous.
The beneficiaries of the bill's passage vary by stablecoin camp. Coinbase and Circle camps believe it is difficult to operate without a compensation system, thus preferring to maintain interest or reward schemes. In contrast, the banking sector and Tether camp may have different interests, leading to differing stances.
Stablecoins have high utility as on-chain financial products. For Wall Street to create many such products, eliminating legal uncertainty is essential. The Clarity Act is expected to fulfill that role.
The CFTC and SEC have stated that they will establish and proceed with their own regulatory frameworks. The Clarity Act, separate from this, addresses federal-level authorization and will play an important role in commercializing spot exchanges and tokenized RWA (Real World Asset) markets.
Institutions handling spot markets, such as Coinbase and Robinhood, will face limitations due to this legal uncertainty.
The proportion of consumers entering the U.S. RWA market is quite low, estimated at roughly 1 to 9. The remaining 90% are non-U.S. user-based services. Legal clarity must be secured for RWA services to expand within the U.S.
Regardless of the Clarity Act's passage, SEC regulation is expected to continue. While there is a possibility that policy direction may waver under the next administration, policy consistency is expected to be maintained for two years under the current Trump administration.
Bitcoin's price has a low direct causal relationship with the Clarity Act. However, it is psychologically influenced by the resolution of regulatory uncertainty. Because it can act as a regulation for the entire digital asset ecosystem, it has historically affected prices due to market participants' expectations and inertia.
Answers come from the transcript, with the exact spot cited.
Want the next video from 삼프로TV 3PROTV too?
When 삼프로TV 3PROTV publishes, we'll write it up like the one you just read and email it to you.
삼프로TV 3PROTV published 97 in the last 7 days.
We skip Shorts. You can unfollow any time.
