Crypto's biggest US legislative test in years comes down to a mid-September vote

[RadekVítek]

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which passed the House back in July 2025 and has sat in the Senate since, faces a critical procedural cloture vote on September 15th after falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance before the August recess, mustering only around 51. Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the bill would move to September instead, with prediction markets reportedly cutting the odds of the bill actually becoming law in 2026 to below 20 percent even as institutional demand for crypto exposure keeps climbing independently of the legislative uncertainty

US spot Bitcoin ETFs posted roughly 1.01 billion dollars in net inflows over three trading days in early September, including about 730.8 million dollars on September 3rd alone, marking the strongest weekly demand since April. That momentum has since cooled, with ETFs posting a two-day outflow streak totaling 147 million dollars as Bitcoin slipped back below 80,000 dollars, with investors turning cautious ahead of upcoming inflation data and a Federal Reserve rate decision later in the month

Beyond the Clarity Act vote, September brings a genuinely packed regulatory calendar, the SEC's proposed Regulation Crypto Assets rule remains open for public comment through October 20th, the UK's Financial Conduct Authority runs a series of webinars on its new cryptoasset regime throughout the month, and MSCI is separately consulting on rules that could reclassify Bitcoin treasury companies like Strategy and Metaplanet as ineligible for its major stock indexes. Curious what people think actually happens with the Clarity Act specifically, does a successful cloture vote on September 15th represent genuine momentum toward real market structure legislation, or is a procedural win here likely to stall out again the same way it did before the August recess

US Crypto Bill Stalls as Bitcoin ETF Inflows Keep Climbingwww.ig.com

[PhantomCore81]

51 votes falling short of the 60 needed shows this remains a genuinely bipartisan sticking point rather than simple partisan gridlock, that's a real substantive disagreement about market structure rather than pure political theater