The Three Competitive Lines of CLARITY: Real Approval Map and the Deadlines That Matter

We are in February 2026, and the crypto industry is still waiting for the CLARITY Act to be approved. The question everyone asks — “When will it be approved?” — seems simple. But in Washington, nothing moves in a straight line. In fact, what we have now are not a single path, but three competing lines, each with different probabilities, specific political obstacles, and real implications for the market.

Legislation advances when institutional interests align, when committees accept political risk, and when competing economic blocs decide that commitment costs less than delay. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is precisely at this critical point. To understand which of these competing lines will be followed, you need to understand why the House of Representatives passed the bill — but the Senate is still hesitating.

The Partial Approval Paradox

The House has already approved the CLARITY Act, formally known as H.R. 3633. This vote was significant because it established a structured proposal to divide regulatory authority between the SEC and the CFTC, creating definitions for when a digital asset is treated as a security or a commodity.

But this approval is just the first chapter. The bill now faces scrutiny from the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee — and here the competing lines begin to diverge. Senate committees are not mere procedural points; they are negotiation chambers where conflicting interests are reconciled, amended, or neutralized. Without scheduled committee votes and approved amendments, none of the competing lines make significant progress.

The Issue That Freezes Legislation: Stablecoin Yield

Behind the Senate’s delay is a systemic conflict that illustrates why there are no shortcuts in legislation.

Traditional banking institutions fear that allowing stablecoins to offer interest or rewards could divert deposits from regulated banks. Native crypto companies argue that banning yields would stifle innovation and distort market incentives. This is not a theoretical dispute — it touches on deposit stability, monetary transmission, and competition between banks and decentralized financial infrastructure.

If lawmakers insist on resolving this issue within the CLARITY Act instead of through separate legislation, the process becomes dramatically slower. The Senate must balance financial stability with innovation policy, and this balance requires careful drafting and political trust — both in short supply.

Why 2026 Is the Year of Real Pressure

The urgency is not just domestic. The European Union has implemented MiCA, creating a unified regulatory framework among member states. Asian countries continue refining licensing regimes. The United States faces increasing pressure to provide a coherent framework that prevents capital and talent migration.

At the same time, 2026 is a year of political transition. Lawmakers are cautious about votes that could be framed as favoring one sector over another. Even with bipartisan support in principle, voting timing can change dramatically.

The Three Competing Lines: When Will It Really Happen

Line 1: Spring Acceleration (March-May 2026)

If the committee schedules a markup immediately and negotiates a manageable package of amendments, the bill moves to the Senate floor in May. This outcome requires a commitment on stablecoins that reduces banking opposition while preserving innovation incentives.

Probability: 25-30%. Requires immediate action and convergence of political will.

Line 2: Summer Approval (June-September 2026)

A more realistic scenario involves controlled delays: negotiations extend, language is refined, structured amendments maintain bipartisan support. Floor scheduling depends on broader legislative priorities, so even after committee approval, timing may shift.

Here, final approval occurs between mid and late summer, possibly after reconciliation between House and Senate versions.

Probability: 50-55%. This is the scenario most consistent with actual legislative dynamics.

Line 3: Post-Cycle Delay (After Elections)

If coalition dynamics weaken or political tensions intensify, leadership hesitates to vote before elections. Legislation stalls and requires new momentum in the subsequent session — potentially 2027.

Probability: 15-20%. Less likely, but structurally possible.

What Really Changes After Approval

Many assume legislative approval immediately transforms the industry. In reality, it’s just the beginning.

The SEC and CFTC still need to develop detailed regulatory procedures. They must define registration requirements, reporting standards, application limits, and transition guidelines. These processes involve public comment periods — extending many months beyond signing.

If the CLARITY Act becomes law in summer 2026, significant operational clarity may not fully materialize until well into 2027. The market is waiting not just for legislative approval but for actual implementation.

The Signs That Matter: How to Track Real Progress

Focus on measurable legislative events, not speculative comments.

First sign: Committee markup scheduled with amendments published.

Second sign: Successful committee vote to report the bill to the full Senate.

Third sign: Public confirmation from Senate leadership on floor scheduling.

Without these milestones, optimism remains speculative. With them, you have reliable signals of which competing line is being followed.

The Truth About the Three Competing Lines

The CLARITY Act has stronger structural support in 2026 than at any previous time — mainly because the conversation shifted from how digital assets should be regulated to how they should be.

This shift is material. It reflects maturity in political debate and recognition that ambiguity harms investors and institutions.

But legislation that redistributes regulatory authority always advances cautiously. The CLARITY Act does this — redefining jurisdictional lines between agencies and influencing how stablecoin models cross traditional banking economies. These are systemic reallocations, not small adjustments.

If negotiations continue steadily and commitments hold, summer 2026 remains the most realistic competing line. If momentum accelerates, spring remains achievable. If coalition math shifts or political caution increases, the three lines could bifurcate further, extending timelines beyond the current cycle.

The market doesn’t just need approval. It needs clarity on which line is being followed — and the above legislative milestones will tell exactly that.