Senate Releases 309-Page CLARITY Act Ahead of Thursday Markup

What Happened

On Tuesday, May 12, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee dropped the full 309-page text of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act just after midnight. Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) scheduled a committee markup for Thursday, May 14, at 10:30 AM ET in Room 538 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The bill covers six titles: a digital asset taxonomy, exchange registration requirements, consumer disclosures, developer safe harbors, stablecoin regulation, and self-custody protections. Committee members had until close of business on May 13 to file amendments, and more than 100 were submitted before the deadline.

The Senate Banking Committee already advanced the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin framework law, through committee in early 2025, leading to its passage in June 2025 by a bipartisan vote of 68 to 30. The Clarity Act is the next layer: market structure for the digital asset markets that stablecoins and commodities like Bitcoin circulate through.

The bill aligns with the March 17, 2026 joint SEC-CFTC interpretive guidance that already classified Bitcoin and other major assets as digital commodities, but guidance is not statute. The Clarity Act would convert that classification into law.

Section 605 would make self-custody a statutory federal right. The amendment process could narrow it before Thursday's gavel falls. Guidance reverses in a memo. Statute reverses in Congress.

What the Bill Classifies and What Section 605 Does

The core taxonomy in the Clarity Act puts Bitcoin, Ether, Solana, and XRP in the digital commodity category. Digital commodities fall under exclusive CFTC jurisdiction for spot markets. Assets that look more like investment contracts remain under SEC authority. The practical effect for Bitcoin holders is that the asset they hold is explicitly classified not as a security but as a commodity governed by the CFTC, the same agency that regulates gold and oil futures.

The SEC loses jurisdictional reach over Bitcoin's spot markets entirely under the bill's framework.

Section 605 is the provision with the most direct relevance to individual holders. It prohibits federal agencies from restricting individuals' ability to self-custody digital assets using self-hosted wallets for lawful purposes. The 'lawful purposes' qualifier matters: a future administration seeking to narrow self-custody rights could argue that certain wallet software or certain usage patterns fall outside lawful purposes.

The provision also creates safe harbors for non-custodial software developers: anyone who publishes or maintains open-source code without controlling customer funds is not a financial intermediary under the bill. Prior to this provision, the legal status of non-custodial wallet developers had been contested in federal prosecutions.

Section 605 draws a statutory line. Statutory language provides the foundation that any legal defense must start from, even if it does not guarantee outcomes in specific enforcement actions.

The Banking Industry Fight and the Warren Amendments

The most contested element in the 309 pages is not the taxonomy but stablecoin yield. The bill's current text blocks crypto firms from offering stablecoin rewards that function like bank deposits but permits 'bona fide' transaction rewards. Three major banking trade groups (the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, and the Financial Services Forum) formally rejected the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise version of this provision in early May, arguing the bona fide carve-out is wide enough to let crypto firms attract deposit flows from banks under a different label.

This increases the risk of a last-minute substitution that delays Thursday's vote or weakens the bill's stablecoin framework before passage.

Senator Warren's 40-plus amendments are the other risk register for individual holders. Her consumer protection amendments could add reporting requirements for holders moving funds to private wallets, narrowing the Section 605 protection in practice even if the self-custody language survives.

Her amendment blocking the Federal Reserve from granting master accounts to crypto firms would raise the cost of crypto-native banking. The ethics provision, while polling at approximately 73% voter support according to public statements by Senator Gillibrand, is the most politically loaded: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) argued publicly that the bill needs rules preventing officials from profiting while regulating the industry, and the bill's current form contains no such language.

Senator Jack Reed's (D-RI) amendment to ban cryptocurrency as legal tender is largely symbolic but signals the breadth of opposition the bill faces on the Democratic side.

What This Means for You

If Section 605 survives the amendment process and the Clarity Act becomes law, your right to self-custody Bitcoin in a hardware wallet is protected by federal statute, not just regulatory tolerance. That is a meaningful structural shift. Executive frameworks like Project Crypto can be reversed by a new administration in a single memo.

Statutory protections require Congressional action to repeal. The self-custody right you currently exercise exists because no administration has moved to restrict it. Section 605 would change the baseline: restricting self-hosted wallets would require an act of Congress, not just a regulatory determination.

The developer safe harbor in Section 605 also matters for the tooling you depend on. The open-source wallet software, the multi-sig coordination tools, the privacy-enhancing transaction tools: all have operated in a legal grey zone since federal prosecutors began testing theories about non-custodial developers and financial intermediary status.

Section 605 draws a statutory line between developers who control customer funds and those who do not. Whether courts interpret it as broadly as drafted depends on the final bill language and enforcement posture, but the provision is the legal foundation any defense attorney would invoke.

The amendment process is where this gets complicated. Watch specifically whether any Warren consumer protection amendment that expands private-wallet reporting requirements survives Thursday's markup, because a bill that codifies self-custody rights in one section while adding surveillance obligations in another is a different instrument from the current draft.

But hold the deeper asymmetry in view. Section 605 is worth fighting for precisely because statutory protection is the strongest version of a right that is always granted, and what a Congress grants a later Congress can narrow or repeal. Key control is the version that is never granted in the first place.

The seed phrase in your hardware wallet protects your Bitcoin on Thursday whether the markup passes, stalls, or dies, because it never depended on a statute. Section 605 raises the floor under a right you already hold by other means. Welcome the statute, but do not let it become the thing your custody rests on.

What to Watch

Watch Thursday's markup at 10:30 AM ET for whether Chairman Scott holds all 13 Republican votes and which of the 100-plus amendments succeed. One thing to track specifically is whether any Warren consumer protection amendment survives that adds private-wallet reporting requirements, because that change narrows the Section 605 protection in practice even if the self-custody language survives in the bill.

The stablecoin yield provisions are another variable: if banking industry pressure forces a last-minute substitution that strips the bona fide carve-out, the bill's impact on the stablecoin competitive landscape changes significantly. Gillibrand also bears watching, since her ethics provision has broad public support according to polling she cited: if Scott cannot broker a compromise on that provision, it could stall the markup even on a Republican-only vote.

The Polymarket odds Thursday morning will serve as the live information market reflecting whatever emerges from Wednesday night negotiations. And watch the broader Senate floor path after committee: the bill needs a majority vote of the full Senate after it advances, and the banking industry's formal opposition signals that lobbying pressure on individual senators will intensify between now and any floor vote.

Tracked entities this report names, with total coverage across the archive. Follow one into the Actor Network to see every report it appears in.

Other reports that name the same tracked actors — a different thread than “related,” which follows wording. These are linked by who appears in them.