Crypto Regulation Shifts to Agencies as CLARITY Act Stalls

Congress stalled, and regulators kept going

In August 2025, a widely read legal analysis argued that digital assets were "coming of age." Its evidence was the growth of tokenization, spot bitcoin and ether exchange-traded products, and stablecoins, all of which were drawing crypto closer to mainstream finance.2 The authors made a point that sounded backwards at first. Regulatory uncertainty had helped crypto-native startups, because legal risk kept established financial firms out. As that risk faded, they predicted, incumbents would use their network effects and institutional advantages to compete for market share.1

Fourteen months later, that prediction is holding up. The way it came true is different from what many expected. Congress did not settle the rules. Instead, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the SEC and the CFTC are writing the rulebook one decision at a time. Meanwhile, bitcoin treasury companies, the market's riskiest bet on crypto going mainstream, are learning what happens when a valuation premium disappears.

The legislative picture: one law passed, one bill stuck

In 2025 the analysis pointed to two federal bills as the foundation. The GENIUS Act for payment stablecoins became law on July 18, 2025. The House passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) the day before, July 17.1 Both the CLARITY Act and the Senate Banking Committee's draft would split oversight between the SEC and CFTC. The House bill would treat more tokens as digital commodities, while the Senate approach left the SEC more room to decide which assets fall outside securities law.1

That split took much longer to resolve than the industry hoped. Every account of the bill's path tells the same basic story. The House passed it 294-134, and the Senate Banking Committee approved a substitute text 15-9 on May 14, 2026.57 On September 15, 2026, a Senate vote to begin debate failed 49-50. It needed 60 votes.310 Republican Senators Collins, Hawley and Moran voted no alongside Democrats.4 Senator Thom Tillis also voted no, which allowed him to file a motion to reconsider.11 No new vote had been scheduled as of late October.610

Accounts differ on why the bill stalled, and the difference matters for its chances next year. DLA Piper puts the focus on ethics: critics said the bill's restrictions on federal officials' crypto income were drawn too narrowly.4 Other coverage lists three overlapping disputes:

• ethics rules for officials' crypto holdings
• Section 604, which law-enforcement groups said would hamper criminal investigations
• stablecoin yield, which led Coinbase to pull its support earlier in the year9

Sponsors say they accepted more than 100 changes requested by Democrats, yet no Democrat voted to proceed.7 Senator Lummis warned that the next realistic chance for a market-structure law could be years away.9

Our reading is that the ethics fight was the immediate cause, but it was not the only problem. The yield issue divided crypto firms and banks for months before the vote.6 A clean ethics deal alone probably would not have produced 60 votes. DLA Piper now considers enactment this year nearly impossible, and expects stakeholders to plan around the 120th Congress.4

The rulebook is being written by agencies

With Congress stalled, regulators are using powers they already have. This is the route the President's Working Group recommended in 2025, when it urged agencies to clarify registration, custody, trading and recordkeeping without waiting for legislation.1 Their 2026 actions include:

• March 2026: an SEC interpretation, with CFTC guidance, sorted tokens into five groups and named 16 coins as examples of digital commodities.
• August 2026: the SEC proposed an exemption for token sales.
• September 2026: the SEC granted a time-limited exemption to venues trading tokenized U.S. stocks.
• October 1, 2026: the SEC proposed custody rules for funds and asset managers holding crypto.6
• October 2026: the CFTC opened an early consultation on leveraged retail crypto trading. Comments are due December 14.11

The 2025 analysis already pointed to custody rules for investment funds as a likely problem area for digital assets, so the October custody proposal is an important test.1

There is a catch. Agency rules can be changed by future regulators far more easily than a statute can. The 2025 analysis made this point when it said the outcome of the legislation mattered because laws last and shape how regulators act.1 FinTech Weekly put it more directly: what the OCC cannot provide is clarity written into law that a future administration cannot undo.31

Crypto custody banks: the OCC is building the perimeter

Banking regulators have changed course most visibly. In early 2025, the FDIC dropped its requirement that banks get approval before crypto activities, and the Labor Department withdrew its warning about crypto in 401(k) plans.1 In 2026 the OCC went further and made national trust charters the main federal home for crypto custody.

The pace has been fast. In December 2025 the OCC conditionally approved charters for Circle, Ripple, Paxos, BitGo and Fidelity Digital Assets.28 Bridge and Crypto.com followed in February 2026. Crypto.com's trust bank can hold assets and offer staking and trade settlement, but cannot take deposits or make loans.27 Coinbase received conditional approval on April 2.31 Coinbase plans to move its institutional custody business out of a New York state-chartered company over three years, and to gain status as an SEC qualified custodian. Forbes linked that business to $376 billion in assets and more than 80% of U.S. bitcoin and ether ETF assets.32

In March the OCC also amended its chartering rule, effective April 1, to confirm that national trust banks may do certain non-fiduciary work, including custody.25 Three more conditional approvals arrived on September 18. One report counts at least 12 in 2026 alone, including Morgan Stanley Digital Trust and World Liberty Trust Company.23 FinTech Weekly counted 11 companies filing or winning approval within 83 days ending March 5.31 The totals vary because outlets count filings and approvals differently, but every count shows the same rapid growth.

The most concrete milestone came on October 26. Ripple National Trust Bank received final approval, not just a conditional one. It can now:

• manage the segregated reserves backing Ripple's RLUSD stablecoin
• act as collateral trustee for RLUSD holders
• provide fiduciary digital asset custody26

The conditional approval in December 2025 had explicitly not allowed the bank to start business. Ripple has not yet announced an opening date.30

The charter wave confirms the 2025 prediction about competition, but in a less obvious way. The newcomers are not simply being pushed aside by incumbents. Crypto firms are taking on bank-style oversight, while traditional institutions such as Morgan Stanley apply for the same charters.2332 Traditional bank groups have objected. The OCC answered that their concerns were really about the framework Congress created and did not justify denying Coinbase's application.32 The Bank Policy Institute has said it accepts crypto in the banking system only if these firms follow the same rules as every other chartered institution.27 This matches the "same risk, same activity, same regulatory outcome" principle that the securities industry group SIFMA urged on the SEC in 2025.1

Bitcoin treasury companies: the premium has faded

Companies whose main business is holding bitcoin on their balance sheets, known as bitcoin treasury companies, show the market side of crypto's maturing. The model depends on mNAV, the ratio of a company's market value to the value of its bitcoin. When mNAV is above 1, issuing new shares to buy bitcoin increases the bitcoin behind each share. Below 1, it reduces it.14 In June 2026, 199 public companies held about 1.264 million BTC, and premiums had shrunk across almost the whole sector.14 An analysis by Samara Asset Group notes two consequences:

• Once premiums disappear, companies turn to debt or preferred stock, which adds claims that rank ahead of common shareholders.
• Different ways of calculating mNAV can show the same company trading at either a discount or a premium.16

That measurement problem shows up clearly in coverage of Strategy, the largest corporate bitcoin holder. In late June one analyst put its mNAV at 0.99, below 1 for the first time.22 SaylorTracker data showed a low of 0.58 on a basic measure on June 26.17 In October, Decrypt reported Strategy's basic mNAV at 0.87, while Strategy's own redefined measure showed 1.12x.17 On October 30, another tracker reported 1.19x on 848,517 BTC.13 With figures this far apart, investors should check how any number was calculated before trusting it.

Strategy's behavior changed more than its metrics. Between May and August it sold 6,948 BTC for about $432.5 million, replacing its "never sell" stance with a goal of never being a net seller.17 It also authorized a program to sell up to $1.25 billion of bitcoin to fund payouts or buy back securities.17 It posted a record $19 billion third-quarter profit as bitcoin rose. Its premium stayed thin, however, while it carries roughly $830 million a year in dividend and interest payments.20 Other treasury companies have taken different routes:

• MARA sold 15,133 BTC to repurchase convertible notes.
• Metaplanet said it would consider share buybacks if its mNAV stayed below 1.14

What it adds up to

The 2025 analysis described regulatory clarity as the force that would reshape competition.1 By late 2026, that clarity has arrived in an incomplete and lopsided form. It is real and fast-moving in custody and banking, where crypto firms and Wall Street are now competing under the same charters. It is still missing in law, where the basic question of which regulator oversees which token remains unresolved.

Treasury companies show that even with fewer legal obstacles, ordinary market discipline still applies. Firms in this sector are increasingly valued on their balance sheets, how they raise money, and their debt and dividend obligations, rather than on enthusiasm. If agency-led regulation lasts, the 2025 analysis may be judged right about which firms win and wrong about how they got there. The risk is that whatever regulators build through charters and interpretations can be undone just as quickly by the next set of regulators.