What constitutes an appropriate function for a legislator when creating guidelines for a fast-advancing innovation? Frequently, lawmakers lag behind while the technology advances prior to the establishment of adequate regulations. To be fair, crafting legislation that places boundaries around fresh technology without halting its expansion, while simultaneously safeguarding users, presents a significant challenge. Nevertheless, when a favorable yet imperfect measure is presented to achieve precisely that, Capitol Hill ought to embrace the chance and cast an affirmative vote. That exact circumstance describes our current situation right before the Senate ballot regarding Clarity.
When FTX failed in November 2022, I served as a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. I witnessed firsthand as authorities uncovered billions in misdirected user assets. Inquiries from journalists repeatedly focused on what actions the CFTC might have taken. The candid reply was: insufficient capabilities. The agency held anti-fraud and anti-manipulation oversight, but Congress had never granted it direct authority over digital asset spot markets. This deficiency persists today, meaning the protections lawmakers provide for traditional securities and commodities still fail to encompass the vast majority of digital asset types.
Roughly four years later, this issue remains unresolved.
Summer Mersinger serves as CEO of the Blockchain Association and previously acted as a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Considering how controversial this dialogue has grown, examining what Clarity actually accomplishes is worthwhile. The legislation establishes a distinct jurisdictional boundary between the SEC and the CFTC, ensuring both a trading venue and its clients understand which regulator holds authority over it. Exchanges catering to US clientele will be required to register. User funds must be kept separate from an exchange’s operational capital—precisely the type of protection that broke down during the FTX collapse. Issuers and trading platforms will encounter disclosure obligations and conflict-of-interest mandates regarding how they manage assets under their control, giving overseers statutory backing for enforcement instead of stretching decades-old mandates to fit a marketplace they were never designed for and leaving courts to decide if those applications stand. These represent fundamental components of the bill as currently drafted.
Achieving this milestone demanded that the Senate Banking and Agriculture Committees dedicate well over a year resolving debates over stablecoin rewards and illicit finance clauses, and a portion of those discussions will likely persist following this preliminary procedural vote. The Senate faced a comparable decision last year concerning the GENIUS Act, and Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat harboring genuine doubts regarding segments of that measure, expressed the proper benchmark for evaluating whether to back it: “It’s not perfect, but it’s far better than the status quo.” The Senate approved the GENIUS Act by a 68–30 margin, and it subsequently became law.
I view that as a sensible benchmark: first, do no harm; second, meaningfully improve upon the existing baseline; third, deliver the safeguards users deserve. Opponents of the legislation have articulated their objections using similar language. Eventually, however, demands for further enhancements can transform into a mechanism for endless postponement—allowing the status quo to persist.
The call for intervention reaches far beyond Washington. Via ClarityForAmerica.com, upwards of 1,000 citizens nationwide have endorsed a joint letter addressed to Senate leadership encouraging the chamber to advance Clarity.
Forging resilient laws seldom involves waiting for an ideal bill, particularly when markets and technologies advance at this velocity. It involves ensuring statutes evolve alongside the developments they aim to regulate. Washington has fallen behind previously, yielding genuine consequences for individuals who presumed safeguards existed when they were absent—as the downfall of FTX demonstrated painfully. On September 15, the Senate possesses an opportunity to demonstrate it can resolve matters within a sensible timeframe, rather than waiting for another market catastrophe before taking action. This framework will undergo refinements for years to come, as it ought to. The matter currently before the Senate represents the next phase in that evolution, and it is long overdue.
Originally published at https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2026/09/14/don-t-let-perfect-be-the-enemy-of-clarity.
