🚨 🚨 BREAKING NEWS: The US Senate cloture vote on the Clarity Act H.R.3633 is 1.5 hours from now.. 📃 🇺🇸 🗳 Click on the link below to watch live.. 👇 Please share this to all your followers around the world.. 🌎 senate.gov/legislative/floor…

I read the Ethics section of the latest Clarity Act (and most of the commentary here, positive and negative). A few things stood out: 1. This is a first. No prior draft crypto bill included ethics provisions. 2. This will change, soon. I've heard there's already a new version underway to address pushback from Dems. There's a clear willingness to bargain in good faith. I'm optimistic. 3. The ethics provision is five parts: a ban, report, start date, expiry date, and severability. Each matter. 4. The meat and potatoes is the actual ban. What does it say? "A covered individual shall not, in exchange for consideration (1) issue a digital asset; or (2) sponsor a digital asset." What does that mean? If you are a "covered individual," you can't sell or promote a digital asset (in any way, including allowing them to use your name or likeness). Holding pre-existing digital assets is allowed, however. And if you do? If you are knowingly and willfully offside that law (v high bar), the penalties are civil: You give up any profits plus pay a penalty, capped at 10% of consideration or 500K, whichever is less. Who qualifies as a "covered individual"? The main target is POTUS, but it's broader than that. It captures public officials or employees (terms defined in the STOCK Act to include the President, VP, some executive branch employees and federal officials, members of Congress and certain staff). It also covers the spouse of a public official or employee, but not the children. That's notable, since most "children" of public officials are adults with business ventures, including the Trumps. (On that point, another section says that a covered individual is not liable if a third party uses their name or likeness without their authorization, direction or control.) What about ties to existing businesses? An important question, one I'd expect someone as smart and good looking as you to raise. There's a safe harbor provision here that allows those "covered individuals" to either (a) place their interest into a blind trust or (b) divest the interest (or both). Basically: Someone at these levels of gov't with a direct business interest (i.e. holds the digital asset or owns at least 20 percent of a related company) must either sell that interest or have no control/knowledge over it. Who enforces this? This is a point of contention. Only the Attorney General can bring a claim. The AG is appointed by, and can be fired without cause by, the President. Dems ask: what's the likelihood a future President's own Attorney General goes after them for violating this? Fair Q. The bill does have some transparency mechanisms (which I'm always a fan of, since the court of public opinion is a real thing come election time), but that won't suffice for those who want an enforcement mechanism. Is there a solution proposed? Critics mostly just complain, which drives me nuts. It's lazy and not helpful. But, thankfully, the Dems actually involved in these discussions are working on solutions. I've seen one idea to use state attorneys general as a backstop, which is what some Dems want. How might that work? If the DOJ fails to bring an action after a referral or violation, state attorneys general would have standing to petition a federal court to compel enforcement (or perhaps themselves sue). That could get messy, right? Uhhh, you're handing every state attorney general (people with political leanings and ambitions) the power to drag the opposing President into court at any time over crypto holdings. Yeah. It could get complicated. Solutions? Let's step back from politics for a second. Who is the harmed party when a public official/employee issuers or sponsors a token? The public interest, right? After all, the problem is that it gives the appearance (or could actually be showing) that officials' power is for sale. Which brings us back to the court of public opinion. It matters. If you look at how these type of cases actually get resolved, it is rarely through prosecution. Officials who profit from their positions (should) get voted out or embarrassed into compliance. Whether that is enough in 2026 is a legitimate debate, but the public interest is being harmed and transparency ensures the public is at least aware. That matters, given the constitutional questions re: enforcement. Constitutional questions? Oh yeah. This could be an article itself. Can Congress tell a President not to issue or sponsor a token? Do the emoluments clauses already prohibit self-enrichment of this sort? That's why severability matters. Severability is simple. Given the constitutional questions here (Congress is regulating the conduct of the President, after all), this spares the remainder of the ethics section if a court strikes down one part as unconstitutional. The timing here matters, too. The rules only apply to conduct that occurs after they come into force (obviously), and are unenforceable after an expiry date. When do they come into force? Unless the SEC is quick on rulemaking, it'll be 360 days after the bill is signed into law. That gives everyone affected some time to divest or transfer relevant assets into a blind trust. Some think it's too long. When do they expire? The ethics provisions expire on January 20, 2029 unless reauthorized, and after Jan 2029, "no person shall be subject to any penalty, forfeiture, or liability" for relevant conduct occurring prior to the expiry (and after the effective date). So ... if you don't get someone who is offside these provisions in the window before expiry, you can't get them after. Nor can you go after them for anything that happened before. What else can't you go after them for? Appearing at an event paid for or organized by a token issuer/sponsor is not considered "sponsorship" (and therefore allowed). Encouraging the use of digital assets generally? That's fine, too. 5. Overall: It's a good start. We're definitely closer than critics suggest. This was the debut of something that's never been done before. I'm hopeful that the Senators involved continue to set political differences aside and prioritize benefiting the American public by passing the Clarity Act. No bill is perfect and this bill isn't the exception. But it protects developers, incentivizes builders, cuts down on legal fees, risk and uncertainty, and regulates an industry that's been asking for it. Nearly there.

🚨NEW: Senator @RonWyden (D-OR) is asking Senate leaders to preserve the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, as passed by the Senate Banking Committee, in any version of the Clarity Act brought to the floor. It comes amid uncertainty over whether certain key law enforcement groups will accept the BRCA language and whether changes will be needed to win their support, as well as the votes of other Democratic senators like Senators @CortezMasto and @MarkWarner. In a letter to Thune and Schumer, Wyden says the provision would codify existing federal policy by clarifying that non-custodial software developers should not be treated as money transmitters solely for publishing software, while preserving the DOJ’s and FinCEN’s ability to pursue illicit actors. Wyden was the Democratic co-sponsor of the standalone BRCA legislation in the Senate alongside @SenLummis.