<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://img.jinse.com.cn/7466297_image3.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://img.jinse.com.cn/7466297_image3.png"/></p>
<p>作者：Clow，Plain Language Blockchain</p>
<p>在 1929 年大萧条之后，美国使用一套证券法来限制 “谁可以出售、出售什么以及如何披露”，这一限制持续了近一个世纪。这些法律保护了几代零售投资者，但在过去十年中，它们也成为了加密行业的绞索。</p>
<p>行业的困境从来不是关于 SEC 或 CFTC 是否应该监管它。真正的问题是美国是否愿意通过成文法来定义加密资产，而不是通过一系列传票。规则不是为了诉讼，而是为了经营公司。近一个世纪后，这一逻辑被重新书写。2026 年 5 月 14 日，美国参议院银行委员会以 15 票赞成、9 票反对通过了 CLARITY 法案。两位民主党人，Ruben Gallego 和 Angela Alsobrooks，跨越党派投票支持。同一天，该法案在 Polymarket 预测市场上的通过概率跃升至 68%。该法案基本上做了两件事：<strong>将 “编写代码” 与 “经营业务” 分开，将 “为他人保管” 与 “拥有它” 分开。</strong></p>
<h2>十个月的谈判促成了这两票的背叛</h2>
<p>15-9 的投票并不顺利。其背后是超过十个月的密集谈判和反复妥协，以解决银行业和执法部门的担忧。在委员会审查期间提交了超过 100 项修正案。</p>
<p>所有 13 位共和党委员投票支持，只有两位民主党人站出来反对。反对派由伊丽莎白·沃伦领导。她的裁决非常强硬：“这项由加密行业自己撰写的法案将削弱自 1929 年以来保护投资者的证券法，给欺诈打开了大门。” 阿尔索布鲁克斯直接反击：“数字革命正在进行中，政府的责任是设定 ‘道路规则’，保护小企业和年轻人，而不是视而不见。” 这两者代表了截然不同的世界观，双方都没有说服对方。沃伦还希望解决 Tornado Cash 币混合器的问题，赋予财政部更大的制裁权，但共和党人以程序性理由阻止了这一提案。范霍伦针对特朗普家族拥有的 World Liberty Financial 提出了一项修正案，禁止高级官员及其家属参与数字资产发行，但在 11-13 的党派投票中失败。这些尴尬的时刻并没有被任何党派立法掩盖。最艰难的斗争是稳定币是否可以支付利息。银行游说团体，美国银行家协会和银行政策研究所警告称，这将引发大规模的 “存款外流”。最终，蒂利斯和阿尔索布鲁克斯之间的妥协打破了僵局，体现在第 404 条中：禁止支付经济上或功能上等同于银行存款利息的回报，但允许因真实使用（如支付、转账和交易）而获得的 “活动奖励”。有趣的是，白宫经济顾问委员会自己的研究表明，即使完全禁止利率，也只会使银行贷款增加 0.02%。经过所有的争论，真正的问题是话语权的力量，而不是那个小数点。法律如何将加密资产划分为四个部分？要理解这项法案为何是一个分水岭时刻，我们需要看看它如何划分这块蛋糕。核心是分类。比特币和以太坊，已经去中心化且功能齐全，被视为 “数字商品”，并属于 CFTC 的专属管辖权。早期资产通过特定团队的努力获得，并符合霍威测试，被视为 “投资合同资产”，属于 SEC。参议院版本还创新性地引入了 “抵押资产”，与证券销售一起分配，但没有股权或债务索赔，要求根据 1933 年证券法第 4B 条进行披露，而不是完全的证券注册。允许的稳定币支付由银行监管机构处理。更重要的是，还有一个 “成熟认证” 阶梯。发行人或去中心化治理系统可以向 SEC 证明网络已经成熟，不再由单一实体控制，从而允许资产 “毕业” 为数字商品的证券状态，并在更多平台上上市和交易。这消除了确定资产性质的诉讼需求、追溯适用性，以及让开发者猜测其创作真实性质的困扰。这项法案的真正馈赠是给这些人。在这项法律之前，加密行业生活在 “执法和监管” 的世界里：先做，再被起诉，然后学习规则。现在顺序被颠倒了。最直接的受益者是传统银行。根据多份报告，该法案修订了银行法，被认为有效终结了 SEC 的 SAB 121 通知。此前，该通知迫使银行将客户保管的数字资产记录为负债，导致高昂的保管成本。随着这一限制的放松，像 BNY Mellon 和 State Street 这样的机构可以以极低的资本成本提供保管服务，为机构进入打开了最后一道大门。开发者获得了一个安全的避风港。该法案将 “软件开发” 与 “金融操作” 分开，明确排除非保管开发者、节点运营商和验证者不作为金融中介。只要代码不直接访问用户资产，他们就不需要遵守证券经纪人的监管规定。还有一个 “加密监管” 豁免，允许区块链初创公司在 12 个月内筹集高达 5000 万美元，免于繁琐的证券注册。总之，委员会的通过是一个里程碑，而不是终点。银行委员会的版本需要与农业委员会的版本合并，然后与众议院在 2025 年 7 月通过的 H.R. 3633 进行比较。6 月的全体投票需要 60 票，这意味着大约还需要游说七位民主党人。7 月 4 日，独立日，是白宫的硬性截止日期；错过这一日期可能会延迟到 2027 年。然而，这个问题早已超越了两个监管机构之间的领土划分。支持者将加密监管直接与美中竞争和美元的主导地位联系在一起；这种国家安全的言辞使一些最初持怀疑态度的民主党人妥协。白宫数字资产顾问帕特里克·维特确认，政府已设定明确目标，力争在 7 月 4 日前完成立法。哈里斯 X 的民调显示，70% 的注册选民认为美国早该通过加密立法，52% 明确支持该法案。Polymarket 的 68% 代表了机构和专业投资者用他们辛苦挣来的钱投下的信任票。最终，这项法案并不声称具有颠覆性。它只是将代码与商业、保管与自我保管分开，恢复了行业寻求十年的运营空间。对于投资者来说，最大的变化是不可预测的行政风险被法典化的法律所取代。曾经不知道他们的代币是否属于证券的开发者，现在至少知道该走哪条路。方向已定，剩下的就取决于 7 月 4 日的那一签名。</p>

COIN

LTCN

RIOT

<p>美国参议院银行委员会以 15 票对 9 票通过了《清晰法案》（CLARITY Act），这是一项对加密行业具有重要意义的法案。该立法旨在明确界定加密资产，将 “编写代码” 和 “开展业务” 区分开来。它将资产分类为 “数字商品” 和 “投资合同资产” 等类别，并为发行人引入 “成熟度认证”。该法案被视为一个转折点，从监管执法的方式转向一个结构化的法律框架，既有利于传统银行，也为加密行业提供了明确性</p>

<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://img.jinse.com.cn/7466297_image3.png" alt="" original-src="https://img.jinse.com.cn/7466297_image3.png"/></p>
<p>Author:Clow,Plain Language Blockchain</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>作者：Clow，Plain Language Blockchain</p>
</div><p>After the Great Crash of 1929, the United States used a set of securities laws to stifle &#34;who can sell, what to sell, and how to disclose&#34; for nearly a century. Those laws protected generations of retail investors, but they have also become a noose around the neck of the crypto industry over the past decade.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 1929 年大萧条之后，美国使用一套证券法来限制 “谁可以出售、出售什么以及如何披露”，这一限制持续了近一个世纪。这些法律保护了几代零售投资者，但在过去十年中，它们也成为了加密行业的绞索。</p>
</div><p>The industry's dilemma has never been about whether the SEC or the CFTC should regulate it. The real issue is whether the US is willing to define crypto assets using a codified law, rather than a series of subpoenas. Rules are not for lawsuits; they are for running companies. Nearly a century later, this logic has been rewritten. On May 14, 2026, the US Senate Banking Committee passed the CLARITY Act with 15 votes in favor and 9 against. Two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, crossed party lines and voted in favor. On the same day, the probability of the bill passing on the Polymarket forecasting market jumped to 68%. This bill essentially does two things: <strong>Separate &#34;writing code&#34; from &#34;doing business,&#34; and separate &#34;custody for others&#34; from &#34;owning it.&#34;</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>行业的困境从来不是关于 SEC 或 CFTC 是否应该监管它。真正的问题是美国是否愿意通过成文法来定义加密资产，而不是通过一系列传票。规则不是为了诉讼，而是为了经营公司。近一个世纪后，这一逻辑被重新书写。2026 年 5 月 14 日，美国参议院银行委员会以 15 票赞成、9 票反对通过了 CLARITY 法案。两位民主党人，Ruben Gallego 和 Angela Alsobrooks，跨越党派投票支持。同一天，该法案在 Polymarket 预测市场上的通过概率跃升至 68%。该法案基本上做了两件事：<strong>将 “编写代码” 与 “经营业务” 分开，将 “为他人保管” 与 “拥有它” 分开。</strong></p>
</div><h2>Ten months of negotiations yielded these two defecting votes</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>十个月的谈判促成了这两票的背叛</h2>
</div><p>The 15-9 vote was not a smooth one. Behind it lies more than ten months of intensive negotiations and repeated compromises addressing concerns from the banking industry and law enforcement. More than 100 amendments were submitted during the committee's review.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>15-9 的投票并不顺利。其背后是超过十个月的密集谈判和反复妥协，以解决银行业和执法部门的担忧。在委员会审查期间提交了超过 100 项修正案。</p>
</div><p>All 13 Republican commissioners voted in favor, while only two Democrats stepped forward. The opposition was led by Elizabeth Warren. Her ruling was strong: &#34;This bill, written by the crypto industry itself, would weaken securities laws that have protected investors since 1929, opening the door to fraud.&#34; Alsobrooks countered directly: &#34;A digital revolution is underway, and the government's responsibility is to set the 'rules of the road,' protecting small businesses and young people, not turning a blind eye.&#34; These two represented two completely different worldviews, and neither convinced the other. Warren wanted to also address the Tornado Cash coin mixer issue, granting the Treasury greater sanctioning power, but the Republicans blocked this on procedural grounds. Van Hollen, targeting World Liberty Financial, owned by the Trump family, proposed an amendment banning senior officials and their families from participating in digital asset issuance, which failed in a 11-13 partisan vote. These embarrassing moments were not covered up by any partisan legislation. The toughest battle was whether stablecoins could pay interest. Banking lobbying groups, the American Bankers Association and the Banking Policy Institute, warned that this would trigger a massive &#34;deposit outflow.&#34; The deadlock was finally broken by a compromise between Tillis and Alsobrooks, enshrined in Section 404: prohibiting the payment of returns economically or functionally equivalent to bank deposit interest, but allowing &#34;activity rewards&#34; for genuine use such as payments, transfers, and transactions. Interestingly, the White House Council of Economic Advisers' own research states that even a complete interest rate ban would only boost bank lending by 0.02%. After all that arguing, the real issue is the power of discourse, not that decimal point. How does a law divide crypto assets into four pieces? To understand why this bill is a watershed moment, we need to see how it divides the pie. The core is classification. Bitcoin and Ethereum, which are already decentralized and functional, are considered &#34;digital goods&#34; and fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. Early assets, obtained through the efforts of specific teams and meeting the Howey Test, were considered &#34;investment contract assets&#34; and belonged to the SEC. The Senate version also innovated with &#34;collateral assets,&#34; distributed with securities sales but without equity or debt claims, requiring disclosure under Section 4B of the Securities Act of 1933, rather than full securities registration. Permitted stablecoin payments were handled by banking regulators. More importantly, there's a &#34;maturity certification&#34; ladder. Issuers or decentralized governance systems can demonstrate to the SEC that the network is mature and no longer controlled by a single entity, allowing assets to &#34;graduate&#34; from securities status as digital goods and be listed and traded on more platforms. This eliminates the need for litigation to determine the nature of assets, retroactive application, and leaving developers guessing about the true nature of their creations. The real gift of this bill is for these people. Before this law, the crypto industry lived in a world of &#34;enforcement and regulation&#34;: do it first, get sued, and then learn the rules. Now the order is reversed. The most direct beneficiaries are traditional banks. According to multiple reports, the bill amends banking laws and is considered to effectively end the SEC's SAB 121 notice. Previously, this notice forced banks to record digital assets held in custody by clients as liabilities, resulting in exorbitant custody costs. With this constraint loosened, institutions like BNY Mellon and State Street can provide custody at extremely low capital costs, opening the final gate for institutional entry. Developers have gained a safe haven. The bill separates &#34;software development&#34; from &#34;financial operations,&#34; explicitly excluding non-custodial developers, node operators, and validators from financial intermediaries. As long as the code doesn't directly access user assets, they don't need to comply with the regulations for securities brokers. There's also a &#34;crypto regulation&#34; exemption, allowing blockchain startups to raise up to $50 million within 12 months, exempting them from cumbersome securities registration. In summary, the committee's passage is a milestone, not the end. The Banking Committee's version needs to be merged with the Agriculture Committee's version first, and then compared with H.R. 3633, which the House passed in July 2025. The full vote in June requires 60 votes, meaning approximately seven more Democrats need to be lobbied. July 4th, Independence Day, is the White House's hard deadline; missing it could delay until 2027. However, this issue has long since transcended the division of territory between two regulatory agencies. Supporters directly link crypto regulation to US-China competition and the dollar's dominance; this national security rhetoric has led some initially skeptical Democrats to acquiesce. White House digital asset advisor Patrick Witt confirmed that the administration has set a clear goal of completing legislation by July 4th. A HarrisX poll shows that 70% of registered voters believe the US should have passed crypto legislation long ago, and 52% explicitly support the bill. Polymarket's 68% represents a vote of confidence from institutional and professional investors with their hard-earned money. Ultimately, this bill doesn't claim to be disruptive. It simply separates code from commerce, custody from self-custody, and restores the operational space the industry has been seeking for a decade. For investors, the biggest change is that the unpredictable administrative risk has been replaced by codified law. The developer who once didn't know whether their tokens were securities now at least knows which way to go. With the direction set, the rest depends on that signature on July 4th.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>所有 13 位共和党委员投票支持，只有两位民主党人站出来反对。反对派由伊丽莎白·沃伦领导。她的裁决非常强硬：“这项由加密行业自己撰写的法案将削弱自 1929 年以来保护投资者的证券法，给欺诈打开了大门。” 阿尔索布鲁克斯直接反击：“数字革命正在进行中，政府的责任是设定 ‘道路规则’，保护小企业和年轻人，而不是视而不见。” 这两者代表了截然不同的世界观，双方都没有说服对方。沃伦还希望解决 Tornado Cash 币混合器的问题，赋予财政部更大的制裁权，但共和党人以程序性理由阻止了这一提案。范霍伦针对特朗普家族拥有的 World Liberty Financial 提出了一项修正案，禁止高级官员及其家属参与数字资产发行，但在 11-13 的党派投票中失败。这些尴尬的时刻并没有被任何党派立法掩盖。最艰难的斗争是稳定币是否可以支付利息。银行游说团体，美国银行家协会和银行政策研究所警告称，这将引发大规模的 “存款外流”。最终，蒂利斯和阿尔索布鲁克斯之间的妥协打破了僵局，体现在第 404 条中：禁止支付经济上或功能上等同于银行存款利息的回报，但允许因真实使用（如支付、转账和交易）而获得的 “活动奖励”。有趣的是，白宫经济顾问委员会自己的研究表明，即使完全禁止利率，也只会使银行贷款增加 0.02%。经过所有的争论，真正的问题是话语权的力量，而不是那个小数点。法律如何将加密资产划分为四个部分？要理解这项法案为何是一个分水岭时刻，我们需要看看它如何划分这块蛋糕。核心是分类。比特币和以太坊，已经去中心化且功能齐全，被视为 “数字商品”，并属于 CFTC 的专属管辖权。早期资产通过特定团队的努力获得，并符合霍威测试，被视为 “投资合同资产”，属于 SEC。参议院版本还创新性地引入了 “抵押资产”，与证券销售一起分配，但没有股权或债务索赔，要求根据 1933 年证券法第 4B 条进行披露，而不是完全的证券注册。允许的稳定币支付由银行监管机构处理。更重要的是，还有一个 “成熟认证” 阶梯。发行人或去中心化治理系统可以向 SEC 证明网络已经成熟，不再由单一实体控制，从而允许资产 “毕业” 为数字商品的证券状态，并在更多平台上上市和交易。这消除了确定资产性质的诉讼需求、追溯适用性，以及让开发者猜测其创作真实性质的困扰。这项法案的真正馈赠是给这些人。在这项法律之前，加密行业生活在 “执法和监管” 的世界里：先做，再被起诉，然后学习规则。现在顺序被颠倒了。最直接的受益者是传统银行。根据多份报告，该法案修订了银行法，被认为有效终结了 SEC 的 SAB 121 通知。此前，该通知迫使银行将客户保管的数字资产记录为负债，导致高昂的保管成本。随着这一限制的放松，像 BNY Mellon 和 State Street 这样的机构可以以极低的资本成本提供保管服务，为机构进入打开了最后一道大门。开发者获得了一个安全的避风港。该法案将 “软件开发” 与 “金融操作” 分开，明确排除非保管开发者、节点运营商和验证者不作为金融中介。只要代码不直接访问用户资产，他们就不需要遵守证券经纪人的监管规定。还有一个 “加密监管” 豁免，允许区块链初创公司在 12 个月内筹集高达 5000 万美元，免于繁琐的证券注册。总之，委员会的通过是一个里程碑，而不是终点。银行委员会的版本需要与农业委员会的版本合并，然后与众议院在 2025 年 7 月通过的 H.R. 3633 进行比较。6 月的全体投票需要 60 票，这意味着大约还需要游说七位民主党人。7 月 4 日，独立日，是白宫的硬性截止日期；错过这一日期可能会延迟到 2027 年。然而，这个问题早已超越了两个监管机构之间的领土划分。支持者将加密监管直接与美中竞争和美元的主导地位联系在一起；这种国家安全的言辞使一些最初持怀疑态度的民主党人妥协。白宫数字资产顾问帕特里克·维特确认，政府已设定明确目标，力争在 7 月 4 日前完成立法。哈里斯 X 的民调显示，70% 的注册选民认为美国早该通过加密立法，52% 明确支持该法案。Polymarket 的 68% 代表了机构和专业投资者用他们辛苦挣来的钱投下的信任票。最终，这项法案并不声称具有颠覆性。它只是将代码与商业、保管与自我保管分开，恢复了行业寻求十年的运营空间。对于投资者来说，最大的变化是不可预测的行政风险被法典化的法律所取代。曾经不知道他们的代币是否属于证券的开发者，现在至少知道该走哪条路。方向已定，剩下的就取决于 7 月 4 日的那一签名。</p>
</div>

The bill the crypto industry has been waiting for for ten years is just one step away from being signed.

- 美国参议院银行委员会通过 CLARITY 法案，旨在规范加密资产。  
- 该法案将 “写代码” 与 “做生意” 分开，促进传统银行参与。  
- 投票通过是十个月谈判的结果，仍需合并农业委员会版本。

加密行业期待已久的法案经过十年终于只差一步就能签署