Bitcoin Magazine
Republicans Continue To Blame Democrats Over Stalled Crypto Clarity Act
Republicans continue to criticize Democrats for dragging their feet when it comes to the long-awaited crypto Clarity Act.
Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Senator Bill Hagerty said that the U.S. could not afford to fall behind the rest of the world with digital asset regulation.
Lawmakers have just the next two days to vote on the Clarity Act before the Senate goes to recess. A bipartisan draft of the bill has been circulating among lawmakers but a number of Democrats are being pernickety over wording in the bill, say some Republicans.
JUST IN:
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) August 4, 2026
"There's no way that we can allow the U.S. to fall behind in the digital assets arena."
“I think the problem is, will we be able to pass this with Democrats right now, or are they going to let midterm politics get in the way,” Hagerty said.
He added: “Everything is moving digital around the world. The Genius Act was a major step forward to make certain that the digital dollar remains dominant in the world, but we need to follow it up with the remainder of the market. We’re going to have to pass the Clarity Act.”
Still, Republican majority leader John Thune told reporters on Monday that the bill would likely get at least an initial vote this week — despite lawmakers being inundated with other pieces of legislation.
A number of major financial institutions, lawmakers and companies have thrown their weight behind the new bill, which was passed in the house of representatives last year with strong bipartisan support.
Still, a number of Democrats have expressed concerns around the wording in the bill, saying in a statement that it needs work.
Republicans have alleged that this is just Democrats playing politics, and that the bill has already had a lot of changes.
Pro-crypto Senator Cynthia Lummis in particular has said that Democrats are deliberately holding back the bill.
Speaking on Fox Business Tuesday, former Republican Senator Pat Toomey mentioned that it was urgent to get the bill passed this week.
“I think it’s essential that the Senate pass this legislation this week,” he said. “The technology of the blockchain is very powerful — it has the ability to transform finance and I think other parts of our economy, but there needs to be legal clarity.”
The Clarity Act has been in a deadlock for much of 2026, partially because the banking lobby raised concerns over stablecoin yield.
An updated bill of the Clarity Act was introduced in July addressing ethics concerns. It now bans government officials and their families from issuing or promoting crypto.
If passed, the Clarity Act would create a regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency market.
This post Republicans Continue To Blame Democrats Over Stalled Crypto Clarity Act first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Mathew Di Salvo.
Japan’s latest crypto law changes have revived the country’s spot Bitcoin ETF discussion, but the important part is the timeline. This is not an approval story today. It is a regulatory groundwork story, and that means investors need to be patient.
The Japanese Cabinet submitted the Bill for Partially Amending the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act and the Payment Services Act to the 221st session of the National Diet, moving crypto assets toward treatment as financial assets under the FIEA rather than only payment instruments under the Payment Services Act.
That sounds technical, because it is. But it could matter a lot.
If crypto assets sit under a financial-assets framework, Japan’s Financial Services Agency has a clearer path to build rules for investment products, including the kind of structure that could eventually support spot Bitcoin ETFs.
The key word is eventually.
Legal classification shapes what financial products can exist.
If crypto is treated mainly as a payment instrument, regulators focus on exchange use, transfers, custody, and consumer protection. If crypto is treated as a financial asset, the conversation widens into investment products, disclosure rules, market conduct, taxation, investor eligibility, and fund structures.
That is why Japan’s FIEA shift matters.
It does not automatically create a Bitcoin ETF. But it moves crypto closer to the legal category where investment trust rules and securities-market oversight can do the work.
For asset managers, that is important because ETF products need a clear regulatory foundation. They need rules around custody, valuation, creation and redemption, market surveillance, disclosures, and investor protection. Those rules are hard to build if the underlying asset sits in the wrong legal bucket.
Japan’s latest legislation starts to solve that structural problem.
Japan has a long history with crypto, and not all of it has been easy.
The country was one of the earliest major markets to regulate crypto exchanges seriously, partly because of painful exchange failures in earlier cycles. That history made Japanese regulators cautious, especially around retail investor protection and custody standards.
So Japan moving slowly on spot Bitcoin ETFs is not surprising.
The US approved spot Bitcoin ETFs after years of rejection, litigation, surveillance-sharing debates, and market-structure scrutiny. Other jurisdictions have taken their own routes. Japan’s process was always likely to be careful, rule-heavy, and tied to broader legal reforms.
That may frustrate traders who want a quick ETF headline, but it is consistent with how Japan tends to handle financial regulation.
The upside is that once a framework is in place, it may be more durable.
The 2028 timeline needs to be treated properly.
A target launch window does not mean products are approved. It does not mean investors can buy a Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF now. It does not mean every asset manager is ready to launch immediately.
It means regulators and financial institutions have a possible runway.
That runway could involve final rules, investment trust amendments, tax adjustments, custody standards, market infrastructure, and product filings. Firms such as large brokers and asset managers may prepare in anticipation, but preparation is not approval.
This is where crypto headlines often get too excited.
“Japan moves toward Bitcoin ETFs” is fair. “Japan approves Bitcoin ETFs” is not.
The difference matters because investors can misread regulatory progress as immediate market access.
Japan’s crypto ETF discussion is not only about listing permission.
Tax treatment matters too. If crypto products are taxed in a way that makes them unattractive compared with other investment vehicles, ETF demand may be weaker than expected. If tax rules become more investor-friendly, regulated products could become more competitive.
Product design also matters.
Will Japan allow only Bitcoin first? Could Ethereum follow? What custody rules will apply? Will products be available to retail investors? What disclosure standards will asset managers face? How will exchanges and market makers support liquidity?
Those details will determine whether a future ETF market is meaningful or merely symbolic.
If the framework develops properly, Japan could become an important Asian market for regulated crypto investment products.
It has deep capital markets, a large retail investor base, major financial institutions, and a strong regulatory culture. A spot Bitcoin ETF in Japan would not only be another product. It would signal that one of Asia’s most important financial systems is comfortable putting Bitcoin into a mainstream investment wrapper.
That would matter for regional adoption.
But the path is still long.
The latest legislation is a foundation, not the finished building. The FSA still needs to shape the rules, institutions need to prepare products, and lawmakers may still need to settle related tax and investor-protection questions.
So the right takeaway is measured optimism.
Japan is not racing into spot Bitcoin ETFs. It is creating the legal conditions that could make them possible later. For a market as cautious and important as Japan, that is still a meaningful step.
This article is based on Japan Financial Services Agency materials relating to the FIEA and Payment Services Act amendments.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released in disclosures at primary source documentation.
Russia’s State Duma has moved crypto regulation toward its final legislative stage, advancing a bill that would establish formal rules for mining, exchanges, and cross-border settlement activity.
The bill, listed as No. 636524-8, is aimed at creating a statutory framework for parts of the digital asset sector that have already become active inside and around Russia’s economy. The measures include mandatory registries for industrial miners, licensing requirements for crypto exchanges, and legal treatment for certain cross-border settlement uses.
That makes the legislation important even for markets outside Russia.
Crypto regulation is increasingly becoming a matter of national payment strategy, energy policy, sanctions exposure, and institutional oversight. Russia’s approach reflects that wider trend: governments are no longer asking whether crypto exists. They are deciding how to control it.
Russia has been a major part of the crypto conversation for years, especially around mining and cross-border payments.
The country has access to energy resources, a technically skilled population, and strong incentives to explore alternative settlement channels. At the same time, it faces sanctions pressure and a complicated relationship with the global financial system.
That makes crypto regulation more than a domestic compliance question.
If Russia formalizes rules for mining and cross-border crypto settlement, it could affect exchange oversight, industrial power usage, institutional access, and international payment flows.
The bill appears to create a more structured environment rather than leaving activity in a grey zone.
For miners, mandatory registries could bring more oversight but also more legal clarity. For exchanges, licensing rules could define who is allowed to operate. For cross-border settlement, the law could give state-approved entities clearer permission to use digital assets in specific contexts.
Mining is one of the most important parts of Russia’s crypto policy debate.
Industrial mining consumes power, creates exportable digital assets, and can become a source of revenue. But it also raises questions around grid stability, taxation, regional energy use, and illegal operations.
A registry model gives the state more visibility.
That may help authorities separate approved industrial miners from informal or unauthorized activity. It can also create a route for taxation and compliance monitoring.
For the mining industry, the trade-off is familiar.
Regulation can add reporting burdens and costs, but it can also reduce uncertainty. Companies operating at scale often prefer a defined legal framework to constant ambiguity.
That is especially true when mining is connected to energy contracts, data centre infrastructure, and capital investment.
The cross-border settlement provisions are likely to attract the most international attention.
Digital assets can move across borders without relying on traditional correspondent banking rails. That makes them useful in some trade contexts, but also sensitive from a sanctions and compliance standpoint.
Russia’s interest in crypto settlement should be viewed through that lens.
A legal framework could allow certain companies or institutions to use digital assets in international trade under state-approved conditions. That would not mean all crypto payments become legal or unrestricted. It would mean Russia is creating a formal route for specific use cases.
The key is how narrow or broad those permissions become.
If the law is tightly controlled, it may mostly support selected trade channels. If it is broader, it could create a larger domestic market for crypto-linked settlement services.
Either way, the development is part of a global pattern. Countries are exploring how digital assets fit into payment systems, sanctions policy, and trade infrastructure.
It is important not to confuse regulation with openness.
A government can legalize certain crypto activities while still maintaining strict control. Licensing, registries, and approved settlement channels often mean more oversight, not less.
Russia’s bill appears to move crypto into a more formal state-supervised framework.
That may help compliant firms, but it may also limit unlicensed activity. Exchanges and miners could face clearer obligations, and cross-border settlement may be restricted to approved participants.
For markets, the important signal is that crypto continues to move into formal legal systems.
The early era of ignoring or banning digital assets is giving way to more detailed frameworks. Some are investor-focused. Some are enforcement-focused. Some are designed around national payment strategy.
Russia’s legislation fits the third category especially closely.
The final details will matter, but the direction is clear: the State Duma is moving crypto regulation deeper into law, and the result could shape how mining, exchanges, and settlement operate in one of the world’s most geopolitically sensitive markets.
This article is based on Russian State Duma legislative materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released in official primary source disclosures at primary source documentation.
Login