To come on the heels of the adoption of the Chamber of the Clarity Act of the Chamber (“Clarity Act”) with strong bipartisan support, the Senate banks Committee published its initial discussion project for the legislation on the structure of the cryptographic market on July 22, 2025, which is supposed to rely on the law on clarity by modifying the law on the Securities of 1933. Soon to publish his own discussion project concerning subjects relevant to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”). Thus, the final version is probably a combination of concepts from the three documents. Although the final version is more complete than the Clarity Act, the expansion means that there will be additional negotiation reasons, and perhaps long.
The Clarity Act of the Chamber stated a regulatory framework for the crypto which included the delimitation of the roles of monitoring of the dry and the CFTC on the crypto and the introduction of a provisional registration regime for brokers or digital concessionaires and exchanges of digital products. In short, the project of discussion of the Senatoric Banking Committee widens the law on clarity by: (1) The definition of “accessory assets” as titles; (2) Clarify the definition of the “investment contract”; (3) The introduction of a concept of “self -certification”; (4) Provide areas for new regulations; (5) Allow banking wallet companies to engage in authorized activities listed in crypto; and (6) require examination standards to prevent illegal activity.
In addition to the discussion project, the Senate banks committee August 5, 2025.
Discussion of the Senate banking committee
The discussion project defines a definition of “auxiliary assets”, which would not be titles but digital assets sold “in relation to the purchase and sale of a guarantee through an arrangement which constitutes an investment contract.” These auxiliary assets would not provide any right or financial payment to its owner. The issuers of these auxiliary assets, or from auxiliary assets, would be able to self -certify that their respective auxiliary assets offer no right that security could, and self -certification could then be refuted by the dry within 60 days. The SEC would be required to implement the disclosure requirements for auxiliary assets, which would include basic information on companies concerning the creator of auxiliary assets and its activities and economic information relating to the auxiliary assets. The discussion project would also free up auxiliary assets if their offer or its sale does not exceed the largest of $ 75 million in gross product over 10 years or 10% of its total value in dollars in current assets on the date of offer or sale. Another regulation is necessary for the provision of auxiliary assets by related people, such as promoters and founders. This should be considered good news for cryptographic entrepreneurs, who would have $ 75 million in “track” before being taken into account of the SEC recording.
The other areas of regulation include a final rule to be adopted by the SEC specifying clear criteria and definitions applicable to the term “investment contract”. The discussion project is based on the Howey Testing to determine if a title constitutes an investment contract, but notes that the final rule should no longer require common points even if an investment in a company is still required. (1) In the previous directives of the SEC issued under Biden administration, the common point was not considered as a distinct element of an investment contract, although a certain number of federal courts also required the horizontal or vertical community to satisfy this pronirement. to various aspects of the portfolio margin as well as for the modernization of dry regulations for digital asset activities. In addition, the discussion project would allow the dry to establish a micro-innovation sandbox to allow eligible businesses to test innovative activities in the United States and also allow bins of cross-border regulatory sand.
The discussion project also includes a section relating to the permission of digital asset activities for financial portfolio companies and banks, which specifies – in a complete reversal of the Biden era policy – that they could use a digital asset or a blockchain system to provide any activity that they are otherwise authorized by law to carry out. The authorized activities range from the provision of childcare services for digital assets and distributed registers, by exercising payment activities involving digital assets, providing brokerage services, to facilitate secondary market transactions. The Federal Reserve, OCS and FDIC would develop risks based on risk and operate capital requirements for digital assets on net agreements. The Treasury would establish an examination and examination process focused on risks for financial institutions for the conformity of the declaration, the LMA and the OFAC in order to prevent illegal activity.
The discussion project excludes developers or providers to be considered as money issuers or subject to registration requirements only because they facilitate the creation or maintenance of services to a large distributed book, and also allow self-debt for people who obtain digital assets to buy goods or services on their own name. If it is adopted, this would provide developers with protection against regulatory overtaking.
Request information
In addition to its discussion project, the Senating Banking Committee has also published a request for information to stakeholders. In addition to requesting comments on his discussion project, the request for information lists 78 questions calling for comments on the areas of regulatory clarity and sewing, investor protection, negotiation and market infrastructure, custody, illegal finance, bank, innovation and preemption. Stressing the priority given to the finalization of the legislation on the structure of the cryptographic market, the Senatoric Banking Committee established a short deadline of two weeks for comments, with comments due on August 5, 2025.
Conclusion
With the first major element of cryptographic legislation now signed with the Act on Engineering for Payment Payments of Stablescoins of the Payment Stables Law, efforts are now accelerating to finalize a bill on the cryptographic market structure. Combined with the working group on the Crypto of the SCA, the work of the Czar of White House cryptography and the prioritization of crypto via decrees, this is the last stage of the general strategy to propose to merge digital assets and blockchain in the American financial system. (3) It has been widely reported that the Senate aims to adopt a bill on the structure of the crypto market at the end of September. The White House should publish its first crypto policy report on July 30, 2025, which is expected to introduce a digital crypto framework in federal agencies.
Those interested in submitting comments to the discussion project should contact your regular DWT contact or any member of the practice of DWT financial services.
(1) Dry c. WJ Howey Co.328 US 293 (1946) (an “investment contract” exists when there is: (1) an investment of money; (2) in a common company; and (3) with a reasonable expectation of profits; (4) derive from the efforts of others).
(2) dry.gov | Framework for the “Investment Contract” analysis of digital assets. See also Revak c. Dry realty corp.18 F.3D 81, 87-88 (2D CIR. 1994) (describing the horizontal common as “the link of each fortune of each investor in the fortune of other investors by pooling assets, generally combined with the pro-rata distribution of profits” and two variants of the vertical community “on the relationship between the promoter and the body of investors”).
(3) Examples include both the federal government and certain states establishing Bitcoin strategic reserves as well as the main financial and retailers institutions announcing the launch of their own stabbed token stabbed and use of crypto as service to their customers.
