Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
ADA 
ETH 
SOL 
XLM 
XRP Software engineer and cryptocurrency analyst updates bill vote tracking
Software engineer and cryptocurrency analyst Vincent Van Code updated his CLARITY bill vote tracking. His previous analysis showed that the bill had received 51 votes to confirm support, while the passage threshold was 60 votes. As the Senate recess approached, consensus among observers quickly solidified around the gap, and many believed the bill would fail to pass. However, this conclusion ignores a key figure in the same analysis.
The truth revealed by the Democratic vote distribution
Van Code's tracking shows that only 12 of the 45 Senate Democrats openly opposed the bill. The remaining 33 did not make a public statement on any position. The bill does not need to win votes from clear opponents; it only needs to win nine votes from 33 senators who have remained silent. This is exactly the number ignored by the pessimistic interpretation.
Voices of Open Opponents
The 12 lawmakers who opposed the bill were the loudest. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who voted against the committee in May, also proposed multiple harmful amendments and has consistently described the legislation as "tailor-made for the industry." Seven Democrats, including Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, signed a joint statement on July 22, pointing to shortcomings in the current text in terms of ethics, consumer protection and market integrity.
Alsobrooks, which brokered a compromise on stablecoin gains in May to get the bill through committee, specifically rejected the latest draft and called the Justice Department's exclusive ethical enforcement a "non-serious proposal." Although these voices are loud, they do not represent the majority opinion of the Democratic caucus.
Broad space for potential support votes
Van Code assesses that the 33 Democrats who have not committed to positions are generally younger, have less interests in traditional banks, and have more direct responsibility to their constituency. This responsibility has a factual basis: 60 million Americans currently own cryptocurrencies, making it one of the largest single interest groups in U.S. political history. Senators representing states with large numbers of cryptocurrency holders face real electoral pressure when voting that reflects the interests of that group.
Fact-based analysis
Van Code is not an American and only holds a small number of personal positions in this area. He uses more than 30 years of trading experience spanning multiple asset classes and views it as a purely analytical observation rather than an emotional judgment. His assessment is that XRP, XLM, ADA, ETH and SOL are seriously underestimated, and regulatory uncertainty is the main suppressing factor. The CLARITY bill directly addresses this uncertainty. Instead of providing financial advice, he argued that separating observable facts from emotional reactions can produce accurate analysis.
In his view, analysts who concluded that the bill was dead were based almost entirely on the 12 Democrats who loudly opposed it, ignoring the broader picture.
Bill still has a chance
Majority Leader Thune promised a full house vote and told reporters that a vote was imminent. The revised draft was released on July 22 and includes ethical provisions, and negotiations are still actively underway. The recess deadline is approaching, but 33 Democratic senators have not yet expressed their opinions, and the bill only needs 9 votes, indicating that the bill still has a good chance of passing.
