The legislative process of the Clarity Act reflects a typical "U.S. crypto regulatory tug-of-war": rapid passage in the House in 2025 (bipartisan support), advancement in the Senate Banking Committee in 2026, but postponement of Senate review in July, reflecting the tug-of-war between "law enforcement concerns (anti-money laundering/sanctions evasion)" and "industry demands (regulatory certainty)".

Similar cases can be compared to the failed path of the 2023 "Responsible Financial Innovation Act" (RFIA) — also promoted by Lummis-Gillibrand, it faced "law enforcement opposition + internal Democratic resistance" in the Senate and ultimately did not reach a full vote, reflecting the structural obstacles faced by "crypto-friendly bills" in Congress.

On the capital path, Polymarket's prediction market has shifted from 0% in December 2025 (passage in 2025) → 47% in June 2026 → 27% in July 2026, forming an emotional cycle of "hope → disappointment → repricing," similar to the process of inclusion → removal → renegotiation of crypto provisions in the 2021 infrastructure bill.

Essentially, this reflects the "closing of the legislative window" in regulatory changes: as the congressional recess approaches and midterm election pressures rise, "controversial bills" are crowded out by higher-priority issues (budget, immigration, foreign affairs), with the underlying mechanism being the crypto industry’s lack of a "ironclad voting bloc" in Congress, making it difficult to exert cross-district pressure.

ABAB News · Cognitive Laws

Prediction markets are not prophecies; they are thermometers of sentiment.
The closing of the legislative window is faster than the opening.
The truth of the crypto industry: lobbying can buy time, but not votes.