- within Transport and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Banking & Credit and Business & Consumer Services industries
New Senate Crypto Market Structure Draft Sharpens U.S. Regulatory Direction
On November 11, 2025, Senate Agriculture Committee released a new bipartisan discussion draft proposing anticipated changes to the regulation of U.S. digital asset markets. The bill builds on previous efforts—particularly the House's CLARITY Act (for more information read our summary and analysis on the CLARITY Act here)—and further reflects the US lawmakers' emerging consensus: the U.S. needs bespoke rules for crypto market structure and asset classification.
Key Takeaways
Like the CLARITY Act, the Senate draft aims to codify how digital assets are classified and overseen. The bill grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over digital commodities and spot markets, while reaffirming the SEC's jurisdiction over digital asset securities.
The draft requires trading venues, brokers, dealers, custodians, and clearing firms dealing in digital commodities to register with the CFTC, much like traditional market infrastructure.
A new process would be introduced to allow issuers to certify that a digital asset qualifies as a commodity which is subject to SEC review. This builds on the CLARITY Act's asset certification model but gives a more active role to both agencies.
Stablecoins are carved out from this framework and will be addressed under separate legislation.
How It Compares to the CLARITY Act
While both proposals aim to resolve jurisdictional ambiguity and foster innovation, the Senate draft reflects stronger bipartisan coordination and a more CFTC-focused framework. The House's CLARITY Act gives issuers greater leeway to self-certify asset status, whereas the Senate draft builds more inter-agency checks into the process. Both, however, reject a "regulation by enforcement" approach and favor clear, public rulemaking.
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.
© McMillan LLP 2025
