preferred on
Points of Focus
- Bitcoin climbed roughly $10,000 after the Senate stalled the CLARITY Act, suggesting congressional setbacks are only one factor influencing BTC markets.
- The SEC and CFTC are increasingly using interpretations, exemptions, and existing authority to provide crypto rules without waiting for new legislation.
- Agency action can provide immediate regulatory clarity, but congressional legislation could offer greater permanence across future administrations.
Bitcoin (BTC) had plenty of reasons to struggle in mid-September. The Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, leaving one of Washington’s biggest attempts to establish a statutory crypto market structure framework in limbo.
A day later, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 25 basis points, delivering its first hike since July 2023.
Yet Bitcoin did almost the opposite of what those headlines might suggest. After initially weakening around the CLARITY vote, BTC climbed $10,000 over the following week and broke above $86,000, reaching an eight-month high. The rally was supported by renewed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) inflows and short covering, with about $433 million flowing into major US Bitcoin ETFs on the Friday before the move accelerated.
✅ Bull Market Confirmed.
After sharing with you that the end of the bear market was approaching with a signal given on July 11th, we now have the confirmation signal that the momentum has indeed shifted.
This is the 5th occurrence, which gives a bit more credibility to the… pic.twitter.com/wuwdUsAW5J
— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) September 24, 2026
That disconnect raises a bigger question than whether traders cared about one Senate vote. If Congress cannot agree on crypto market structure legislation, does the industry actually remain stuck in regulatory limbo, or are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) increasingly building a workable framework without lawmakers?
CLARITY failed, but regulatory clarity didn’t stop
The Senate’s Sept. 15 vote was significant, although it was not a final vote on the CLARITY Act itself. Senators voted 49-50 against invoking cloture on the motion to proceed, falling short of the 60 votes required to move forward.
For years, the assumption in Washington was that legislation would ultimately be required to resolve one of crypto’s central regulatory problems: where SEC jurisdiction ends and CFTC authority begins. Developments in 2026, however, have started to complicate that assumption.
In March, the SEC issued an interpretation, joined by the CFTC, explaining how federal securities laws apply to different types of crypto assets. It established five categories covering digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities while also addressing staking, mining, airdrops, and circumstances in which a non-security crypto asset can become connected to an investment contract.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins explicitly described the interpretation as a way of drawing clearer regulatory lines, while Congress continued working on legislation. The CFTC, meanwhile, said it would administer the Commodity Exchange Act consistently with the interpretation.
For Innokenty Isers, co-founder and CEO of Paybis, that shows why the failure of one particular bill does not necessarily mean regulatory clarity disappears with it.
“I don’t think the industry needed this exact bill to get clearer rules,” Isers told AlphaWire. “CLARITY would have put a durable framework into law, and that still matters: Agency guidance can be rewritten by the next administration — a statute can’t. But regulators have already shown Congress isn’t the only route.”
Two days after Congress stalled, the SEC moved again
Perhaps the strongest evidence arrived almost immediately after the Senate setback.
On Sept. 17, just two days after the CLARITY vote, the SEC granted temporary conditional exemptions allowing certain tokenized securities venues to facilitate trading in tokenized US-listed stocks using permissioned automated market makers and liquidity pools.
Atkins directly linked the timing to what had happened in Congress. In a statement accompanying the decision, he noted that Congress had been unsuccessful in advancing CLARITY earlier that week before saying the SEC was moving “within its statutory authority” to facilitate onchain trading.
SEC and CFTC move to write crypto rules as the Clarity Act stalls in the Senate: With the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act stuck in the Senate, the SEC and CFTC are no longer waiting for Congress to act. Both agencies are pressing ahead with their own… https://t.co/6sMCQEIILU
— Quartz (@qz) September 23, 2026
That sequence reveals what may be becoming a two-track US regulatory system. Congress can rewrite the underlying statutory framework and establish durable divisions of authority, while agencies can interpret existing laws, issue exemptions, and develop rules that give businesses considerably more certainty than they had before.
It matters because those powers are not interchangeable. The March SEC-CFTC interpretation is regulatory guidance rather than legislation, meaning it does not bind courts in the same way a statute would and could potentially be changed or withdrawn under future agency leadership. Even the SEC’s new tokenized-stock framework is explicitly temporary while the regulator studies longer-term rules.
In other words, agencies can fill regulatory gaps, but they cannot necessarily close them permanently.
MiCA shows what Congress could still provide
Europe provides a useful comparison because the EU has already taken the legislative route through Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, or MiCA. Rather than relying primarily on changing interpretations from individual regulators, MiCA creates a harmonized framework governing crypto assets and service providers across the bloc.
Isers said Paybis’ experience under MiCA demonstrates both sides of that approach.
“Paybis is licensed under MiCA, so we see the trade-off first-hand: higher compliance costs, but the certainty to plan products and partnerships across the EEA,” he told AlphaWire.
“The US still needs durable rules, but CLARITY was never the only way to get there.”
That distinction could become increasingly important for businesses making long-term decisions. An SEC interpretation may answer whether a particular activity is likely to trigger securities regulation today, but legislation can provide greater confidence that the same regulatory architecture will survive a change in administration.
The emerging US model may be less about agencies replacing Congress entirely and more about agencies providing enough clarity for markets to operate while Congress struggles to deliver permanence.
Bitcoin’s rally shows the limits of the regulatory narrative
Bitcoin’s price action adds another dimension to that argument because it suggests investors may already be treating congressional regulation as only one variable among many.
“For all the attention CLARITY received, Bitcoin’s reaction was modest,” Isers said. “It fell a few percent on the day of the vote, then climbed roughly $10,000 over the following week, in the same week the Fed raised rates for the first time since 2023.”
The Fed unanimously increased its target range to 3.75%-4% on Sept. 16, traditionally the kind of tightening move that can pressure risk assets by increasing the relative attractiveness of yield-bearing investments. Bitcoin nevertheless pushed above $86,000 days later.
“One vote was never going to outweigh liquidity, ETF flows, positioning and macro for long,” Isers added.
There is evidence behind that argument. US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw about $433 million in Friday inflows immediately before Bitcoin’s push through $86,000, while short covering also contributed to the rally. More recently, Bitcoin ETFs attracted nearly $1 billion in a single session and roughly $1.59 billion across three sessions.
That does not mean regulation has become irrelevant. Instead, its biggest impact may increasingly be structural rather than visible in Bitcoin’s next 24-hour move. Regulatory certainty influences whether financial institutions launch products, where crypto companies establish operations, and how much compliance risk businesses must price into long-term investment decisions.
Congress still has something agencies cannot provide
There is also a second adoption question that legislation alone cannot solve. Isers said first-time crypto buyers are often more concerned about fraud, security, and simply understanding how to enter the market than about the finer details of SEC-CFTC jurisdiction.
“For most new users, a familiar product and a simple way in will do more than another piece of legislation,” he said.
That helps explain why Bitcoin’s post-CLARITY rally should not be read as evidence that regulation no longer matters. What it does suggest is that the market may no longer see congressional legislation as the only path toward a functioning US crypto framework.
The SEC and CFTC are already defining asset categories, interpreting existing laws and creating exemptions for activities that previously sat in regulatory uncertainty. Congress still holds the stronger tool because legislation can establish authority that does not depend on who occupies the regulatory agencies next.
The real divide, therefore, may no longer be clarity versus no clarity; it is increasingly becoming agency-built clarity now versus statutory certainty later.
Share
Most read articles
