In the author's column, the failure of the vote on the CLARITY Act in the US Senate is analyzed, and it explains why the Trump administration's policy may still contribute to a new growth of Bitcoin and the crypto market despite the legislative delay.
Author's analytical column. Igor Nikolaevich Fridman, analyst at tradepas.com. For News by Reviews. October 15, 2026.
The Law Did Not Pass. The Bullish Scenario Is Still Alive
There is a temptation in the crypto market to explain everything by a single vote. If Washington approved the bill — buy. If senators blocked it — sell. But financial markets are more complex: capital evaluates not only the adopted norm, but also the direction of policy, the probability of future decisions and the availability of financing.
On September 15, 2026, the US Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act): the procedural vote ended with 49 votes "for" and 50 "against", whereas 60 were required to advance. This is not an adopted law and not a achieved victory for the crypto lobby. This is a serious legislative failure. And yet my baseline thesis remains constructive: the policy of the Donald Trump administration may create conditions for a new upward cycle of digital assets, even if the formal adoption of the CLARITY Act is postponed.
The key word is "may". The price of Bitcoin does not obey orders from the White House. But the cost of capital, custody rules, the possibility of launching products, regulatory predictability and institutional demand really depend on decisions in Washington.
What Exactly the CLARITY Act Changes
The problem of the American crypto market has historically consisted not only in strict supervision, but also in the ambiguity of token qualification. For some instruments, the question arises about the application of securities legislation, for others — about the competence of the CFTC and the rules of commodity markets. For issuers, exchanges, custodians and institutional investors, such uncertainty means additional legal costs, risk of litigation and a discount to business valuation.
The CLARITY Act is designed to systematize the delineation of powers between the SEC and the CFTC, regulation of digital commodities, trading platforms and intermediaries. Predictability here matters more than political slogans. The investment committee of a large asset manager does not allocate capital simply because the president uttered the word "cryptocurrency". It needs verifiable rules for asset custody, compliance, risk disclosure and market infrastructure.
On the eve of the September vote, senators presented a revised text that included numerous compromise changes. But disagreements over ethics, conflicts of interest, investor protection and the scope of regulatory powers proved significant. The failure of the vote means that the legislative catalyst is postponed; it would be wrong to speak of the inevitable adoption of the law.
Trump and the Structural Reversal of Regulation
The pro-crypto position of the Trump administration is not only a series of public statements. In May 2026, the White House published an executive order on integrating financial innovations into regulatory frameworks. Its stated goal is to reduce excessive barriers and facilitate interaction between fintech companies and traditional financial institutions. Earlier, the administration supported the development of a federal regulatory framework for stablecoins; the GENIUS Act was signed in July 2025.
But here one should distinguish between political support and investment returns. The order does not replace an act of Congress, and administrative rules can be challenged or changed by the next administration. In addition, the participation of politicians and structures connected with them in crypto business raises legitimate questions about conflicts of interest. This is a real source of regulatory and reputational risk, not an annoying detail that should be silenced for the sake of an optimistic headline.
Nevertheless, the direction of changes is fundamental: digital assets are gradually being viewed not only as an object of law enforcement, but also as a potential part of American financial infrastructure. It is precisely such a change of regime that can influence sector company multiples and long-term investor expectations.
From Regulatory Clarity to Capital Inflow
The first channel is access for institutional money. The more transparent the custody and trading regime, the easier it is for pension, insurance, brokerage and banking structures to assess operational risks. This does not mean an automatic inflow of trillions of dollars. But even small changes in permissible allocations can significantly affect the relatively limited liquid volume of the crypto market.
The second channel is exchange infrastructure. Coinbase, Robinhood and other participants may benefit from the expansion of regulated services, tokenization and custody business. At the same time, their shares depend not only on the Bitcoin rate, but also on trading volumes, commissions, compliance costs and competition.
The third channel is stablecoins and settlements. A clearer legal regime for dollar tokens can increase the utility of blockchain networks as payment and settlement infrastructure. However, growth in stablecoin volume is not equivalent to growth of every altcoin: economic value may settle with issuers, partner banks, exchanges and infrastructure operators, rather than with holders of speculative tokens.
The fourth channel is the reduction of the regulatory risk premium. If the probability of a ban, forced delisting or an unexpected court decision decreases, investors may demand lower returns for taking legal risk. In practice, this can support the valuation of quality projects. But reducing one type of risk does not cancel technological, credit and market risks.
Bitcoin, Ethereum and Altcoins: Who Gets the Gain
Bitcoin remains the main instrument of institutional expression of a bet on crypto assets. Its investment narrative combines limited issuance, global liquidity, exchange-traded products and independence from any specific company. With an improved regulatory environment, BTC is likely to be one of the first beneficiaries of large capital inflows.
Ethereum is a more complex story. Here the investor buys not only a monetary asset, but also exposure to the use of computational, settlement and tokenization infrastructure. For ETH, real network demand, fee economics, L2 competition and alternative blockchains, as well as what part of the created value actually goes to token holders, are fundamental.
With altcoins, caution is doubly necessary. Regulatory clarity can help legitimate projects with a sustainable product, but will not fix weak tokenomics, concentration of supply and absence of revenue or utility. In the next cycle, the market may well rise without a universal "altseason". Capital will become more selective, not more generous.
Why the Fed Rate Is Sometimes More Important Than the President
Even the most favorable legislation does not cancel the value of the dollar. If real yields on US bonds rise, the dollar strengthens, and financial conditions tighten, it becomes harder for speculative assets to attract capital. In such a regime, the crypto market can fall simultaneously with technology stocks — regardless of positive news from Washington.
Therefore, analyzing Bitcoin prospects without the Fed, Treasury yields dynamics, liquidity, flows into spot ETFs and open interest in the derivatives market means seeing only half the picture. Trump policy can raise the market's long-term potential, but the timing of entry and the amplitude of movement are also determined by macroeconomics and positioning.
Especially dangerous is the scenario when investors price in the successful adoption of new legislation in advance. Then even positive news can trigger profit-taking, and another delay — liquidation of over-leveraged positions.
Three Scenarios for the Next 6–12 Months
Base case, moderately bullish. The SEC and CFTC continue to develop applicable rules within their powers, infrastructure expands, and monetary conditions do not deteriorate sharply. Institutional demand supports Bitcoin, Ethereum receives selective support from growth in real network usage. At the same time, altcoins show significant dispersion. Triggers: sustained ETF inflows, growth in regulated volumes, reduction in legal uncertainty. Cancellation of the scenario: prolonged outflows from funds combined with tightening financial conditions.
Accelerated bullish. A politically viable new version of the CLARITY Act or a comparable set of rules appears, and the Fed gains room to ease. An increase in institutional allocations is accompanied by greater market depth and activity in tokenization. Then Bitcoin may update local highs, and Ethereum and certain infrastructure tokens may outperform the market. Cancellation condition: legislative deadlock, weak product demand or inflationary shock.
Bearish. Legislative conflict drags on, supervision or litigation intensifies after the elections, and real rates remain high. A decline in risk appetite triggers ETF outflows and a cascade of liquidations. In such a case, even a structurally positive long-term story will not prevent a deep correction of Bitcoin and a more painful sell-off of altcoins. Signals: sustained growth of the dollar and real yields, deterioration of liquidity, negative fund flows and a sharp increase in leverage before the decline.
These are conditional scenarios, not price guarantees. Without a confirmed current quote and positioning data, I deliberately do not name arbitrary "exact targets" for BTC or ETH.
What Indicators an Investor Should Watch
To test the bullish thesis, I would highlight five groups of signals. First, new documents from Congress and regulators, not political promises. Second, net flows into regulated spot products and changes in assets under management. Third, real yields on US Treasury bonds and the dollar index. Fourth, funding rates, open interest, futures basis and liquidations. Fifth, growth of real economic activity in blockchain networks — settlements, fees, transactions and sustainable demand for tokenization.
One strong trading day proves nothing. A sustained combination of regulatory progress, capital inflows and improved liquidity is already grounds for revising scenario probabilities.
Conclusion: the Crypto Market Needs Rules, Not a Savior
My view on cryptocurrencies in the medium term remains positive, but the reason is not reducible to the president's surname. Trump can accelerate the political normalization of the industry, the CLARITY Act can become the foundation of a more understandable market, and the SEC and CFTC can fill part of the gaps even before a new law. However, none of these factors guarantees immediate price growth.
Perhaps the main shift lies elsewhere: the digital asset market is gradually emerging from an era when its existence depended on constant dispute over legitimacy and entering an era of competition for real financial flows. For Bitcoin, this potentially expands the institutional base. For Ethereum, it opens the opportunity to monetize infrastructure demand. For weak altcoins, on the contrary, it makes the quality check even stricter.
I view the current legislative failure as an obstacle, but not as a final verdict on the bullish cycle. Betting on growth is justified only with confirmation by facts: regulatory decisions, liquidity and capital. Cryptocurrencies do not need a new myth of inevitable wealth. They need a market in which rules are clear, risks are assessable, and growth is based on demand, not on applause for political statements.
Igor Nikolaevich Fridman is an analyst at tradepas.com. Author's analytical position for the editorial draft; personal coordination of the text and authorship has not been confirmed. The material is not an individual investment recommendation. Trading crypto assets and derivatives involves the risk of substantial losses.