TLDR
- The CLARITY Act passed the first markup in the House Committee on Agriculture with a vote of 47 to 6.
- Crypto stakeholders have raised objections to a new provision that they say creates regulatory uncertainty.
- The controversial section removes exceptions for previously issued tokens and gives broad authority to the SEC.
- Industry players compare the situation to the SEC’s past inconsistent actions on Ethereum and Ripple.
- Eight crypto firms, including Uniswap, support the inclusion of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act in the bill.
The CLARITY Act has passed its first markup in the House Committee on Agriculture, advancing with a 47 to 6 vote. However, stakeholders in the crypto industry expressed concerns about a controversial new provision in the amended bill. This development comes just as the House Financial Services Committee begins its own markup process at the Rayburn House Office Building.
🚨NEW: The CLARITY Act just passed out of the @HouseAgGOP with a vote of 47-6 following a nearly 3-hour markup.
They’re just starting on the markup now in @FinancialCmte.
— Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) June 10, 2025
Industry Flags ‘Gensler-Era’ Provision as Source of Uncertainty
Several crypto stakeholders raised objections to a new section of the CLARITY Act introduced during recent revisions. They argue the section removes protections for previously issued tokens and fails to limit SEC authority. As a result, they claim the bill could reintroduce regulatory uncertainty instead of resolving it.
🚨NEW: Ahead of today’s CLARITY Act markup in @FinancialCmte and @HouseAgGOP, some industry players I’ve been speaking to are raising concerns over a new section in the amended text they’re describing as a “Gensler-era provision.”
The change would eliminate exemptions for…
— Eleanor Terrett (@EleanorTerrett) June 10, 2025
Concerns focus on the bill’s shift away from exempting tokens that predate certain regulatory decisions. Critics suggest the provision reflects the Gensler-led administration’s strict interpretation of securities law. Therefore, they view the addition as counterproductive to the bill’s original intent.
The controversy stems from a perceived link to past SEC enforcement inconsistencies. Crypto advocates cite the contrast between the SEC’s stance on Ethereum and Ripple’s XRP. This comparison has renewed debates about the Commission’s discretionary power in token classification.
Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act Gains Broader Support
In contrast, other sections of the CLARITY Act have gained notable industry backing from key crypto players. The inclusion of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) in the bill received support from eight blockchain firms. These firms include Uniswap, which openly endorsed the addition ahead of the markup phase.
The BRCA aims to protect developers building non-custodial blockchain infrastructure from burdensome regulatory requirements. It clarifies that these actors are not financial intermediaries under securities law. This provision has drawn praise for enhancing regulatory clarity without hindering innovation.
Supporters argue the BRCA section brings much-needed certainty for builders working on decentralized platforms and public networks. They consider its inclusion as a critical step toward clearer legislation in the space. Thus, the BRCA appears to have broad bipartisan and industry support within the larger bill framework.
CLARITY Act Moves Forward Despite Divided Reactions
Despite objections, the House Committee on Agriculture approved the bill after nearly three hours of deliberation. Shortly afterward, the House Financial Services Committee began its own review. Lawmakers from both committees will evaluate the bill’s implications in the coming days.
The progress of the CLARITY Act marks a significant step in establishing a clear digital asset framework. Yet, concerns about the amended provision remain unresolved. As the legislative process continues, industry responses could shape future changes to the bill.
