House approval of the CLARITY Act outlines SEC and CFTC responsibilities

On July 17, 2025, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 3633 by 294 votes to 134. The approval of the CLARITY Act in the House gave bipartisan support for a federal architecture for crypto markets, but did not enact a law: the Senate had yet to act and any different language would have to be reconciled.

The project attempted to reduce an uncertainty repeated for years: which assets and activities correspond to the Securities and Exchange Commission and which to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. To do so, it defined categories, established registration pathways for intermediaries, and linked part of the regulatory treatment to the degree of maturity of a blockchain network.

What did the approval of the CLARITY Act in the House contain?

The approved text distinguished between digital assets subject to securities laws and “digital commodities” under the supervision of the CFTC. The classification did not rest solely on the name of the token. It took into consideration the form of broadcast, the associated rights, the use of the network and whether there was a person or group with relevant functional control.

The proposal also created regimes for exchanges, brokers and dealers of digital commodities. It included client asset segregation, conflict management, record-keeping and disclosure requirements. For issuers and promoters, it included information on the economy of the token, code, governance, risks and related people.

One of its most discussed mechanisms was the certification that a blockchain had reached sufficient maturity. That conclusion could affect the supervisor’s competence and secondary market obligations. The SEC would retain an avenue to challenge a certification, so the bill did not replace all analysis with a simple statement from the issuer.

The distribution between SEC and CFTC

The CLARITY Act sought to give the CFTC a broader role over digital commodity spot markets. However, the agency already supervised derivatives and pursued fraud or manipulation in commodities within certain limits. The project sought to add a registration and surveillance regime that would require resources, rules and inter-institutional coordination.

The SEC would maintain authority over securities and fundraising operations that meet that definition. This separation was relevant because an asset and a transaction are not necessarily the same: an initial sale may form part of an investment contract even though subsequent transfers of the asset have different characteristics.

Proponents argued that express rules would allow operating in the United States with greater predictability. Critics warned of potential loopholes, inferior protection under securities legislation, and decentralization criteria susceptible to manipulation. The House vote demonstrated political support, it did not resolve those technical objections.

What was changing for companies and users

In July 2025 no licenses were immediately changed by the vote. An exchange could not declare itself registered under a regime that did not yet exist, and an issuer did not obtain an automatic exemption. The securities, commodities, monetary transmission, sanctions and consumer protection regulations applicable to each activity remained in force.

Still, the project offered a useful roadmap. Platforms and promoters could review custody, asset separation, conflicts and disclosures in anticipation of the possible model. It also showed that the governance structure and control of a network could become legally auditable facts, not just marketing arguments.

Outlook from 2026

The bill was not law at the end of July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its version by 15 votes to 9 on May 14, 2026, sending it to the floor. On July 22, Senator Cynthia Lummis published an updated text that integrated work from the banking and agriculture committees.

As of August 2026, these actions showed an ongoing process, but the legislative sources consulted did not prove definitive approval by both chambers or a presidential signature. Therefore, the historical relevance of the 2025 vote lies in having established a market structure proposal; describing it as a federal framework already in force would anticipate a result that still depended on Congress.