The final draft of the Clarity Act will be released before the September 15 vote

Core Points

Ethics section adds state enforcement powers. Regulated officials need to divest assets or establish blind trusts. Fines for each violation can exceed $500,000. Restrictions on stable currency awards need to be determined by the Ministry of Finance. Tuesday's vote failed to pass the bill directly.

The revised draft builds around major obstacles to voting

Senators Cynthia Lummis, John Boozman and Tim Scott issued a new "final" draft notice for the Digital Market Asset Clarity Act on September 14. Republican sponsors said the version contained 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats during the negotiations.

The most relevant change to Tuesday's vote involves the enforcement of ethics. Rules for federal officials to hold crypto assets have become one of the main obstacles to advancing broader market structure bills, including disputes over stablecoins, banking and regulatory powers.

The enclosed change memorandum is the sponsor's summary of this revised protocol. It outlines the expected changes, but the legal scope of each provision will depend on the statutory text Congress ultimately passes and the rules used to implement it.

Tuesday's vote decided whether the Senate should accept the bill

The Senate is scheduled to vote on Tuesday, September 15, to terminate the H.R. Bill 3633 continues to be considered for debate on the motion for a vote. Getting 60 votes would allow the Senate to begin formal consideration of the CLARITY Act, but that doesn't mean the bill will pass or resolve its remaining amendments.

The sponsors indicated that they would offer the revised text as an alternative amendment if the Senate proceeded with deliberations. That means senators will consider a negotiated overall plan rather than voting separately on ethics agreements, stablecoin provisions and developer protection.

Republicans had previously warned that the vote could fail. As a result, the new draft is designed to show senators what they will actually vote on, rather than requiring them to move forward with the most sensitive provisions unresolved.

Ethics provisions give state governments a role

The memorandum states that state attorneys general will be able to enforce certain prohibitive provisions involving the release or rumor of digital assets for "covered individuals" or in whom they have a significant financial interest. The memorandum also describes enforcement against exchanges that list assets issued or sponsored by in violation of the ban.

The proposed remedy is specific: "covered individuals" must strip significant interests or place those interests in a qualified blind trust as required by the Government Ethics Act of 1978. The final legal definition of "covered individuals" will determine which officials and relationships fall within the jurisdiction of the rule.

How the proposed ethical rules work

• Financial benefits: Covered individuals need to divest certain significant benefits or use qualified blind trusts.
• Exchange listings: The memorandum describes the measures to be implemented by state agencies when the exchange lists assets issued or sponsored in violation of the proposed ban.
• Penalty: Civil penalty is equal to 20% of the consideration received or US$500,000 (adjusted for inflation), whichever is higher.

The ethical provisions will take effect 360 days after the enactment of the bill, or 60 days after the final rule implementing section 10102 takes effect, whichever occurs earlier.

These details are important because the center of the negotiations is whether the bill can substantively resolve conflicts of interest related to President Donald Trump 's crypto business. Trump's meetings with advisers reportedly reflected the White House's involvement in the negotiations, and doubts about Trump's earnings related to the MEME token helped fuel calls for enforceable restrictions.

Republican sponsors say the plan reflects most of the substance of his Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal. However, the release did not indicate that enough Democrats would support an end to the debate.

Changes in stablecoins are conditional and temporary

The revised draft also gives the Ministry of Finance limited powers to limit the rewards available to holders of payment stablecoins. This is not a permanent ban on stablecoin rewards.

According to the sponsors 'memorandum, the Minister of Finance must first issue a written confirmation that payment stablecoins are causing large-scale loss of community bank deposits. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance will be instructed to issue restrictive regulations. The authorization will expire 18 months after the bill is enacted.

This design makes the measure dependent on specific bank concerns and limited in time. It also leaves behind important issues that need to be resolved through rulemaking, including the evidence needed to prove a massive loss of deposits and which reward arrangements fall within the limits.

The developer clause extends to miners and verifiers

Changes to the Blockchain Regulatory Definiteness Act address a separate issue: whether non-escrow blockchain infrastructure will be considered money transfer activity. The promoter's memorandum stated that the draft retains anti-money transfer Register Protection for eligible developers and certain bank secrecy classification exemptions.

In addition, these protections extend to miners and validators who were not previously covered. This is not a general exemption from financial law. The clause is intended to address situations where a person develops, verifies or maintains blockchain infrastructure but does not take over or control a user's assets.

Another layer of content has been added to the Agriculture Committee. It will impose stricter conflict of interest barriers on digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers for related transactions. The memorandum also said it clarified the application of state consumer protection laws.

The final draft turns the vote into a test of a compromise.

The revised bill provides senators with a clearer assessment: ethical rules that include state participation, time-bound stablecoin rewards, and clear protections for unmanaged blockchain participants.

Tuesday's vote will show whether the changes can attract the 60 votes needed to begin Senate deliberations. It will not determine whether the CLARITY Act becomes law, but it will show whether ethical compromises are enough to push cryptocurrency market structure legislation over immediate procedural hurdles.