Clarity Act signed into law in 2026?

The market’s 15.5% Yes probability assigns limited weight to CLARITY’s demonstrated bipartisan support because its remaining obstacles are sequential and deadline-bound. H.R. 3633 has already passed the House, and the supplied research says the Senate Banking Committee approved it. The contract, however, requires passage by both chambers and a presidential signature by December 31, 2026. That turns a potentially supportive Senate vote into an intermediate milestone, not the event that settles the question.

House passage establishes a base, while enactment requires a separate Senate finish

The House passed the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 on July 17, 2025, by 294 votes to 134, according to the House Clerk’s Roll Call 199. That margin is meaningful evidence that the legislation has support extending beyond a narrow majority. It also removes one of the contract’s formal conditions.

The supplied Senate research adds a second positive development: the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee passed the bill 15-9 on a bipartisan basis in May 2026. Committee approval puts a bill closer to floor consideration and gives supporters a recorded vote count that can inform expectations about momentum.

Yet neither vote supplies the Senate’s final approval or a signature. The 84.5% No outcome can therefore be read as an execution-risk assessment: each remaining step must occur in time, and the resolution date does not reward partial progress. The market’s small one-day move toward No, up one percentage point, is consistent with that distinction, though the move alone does not identify its cause.

September 15 is the immediate procedural test

The Senate Daily Press states that a cloture motion on H.R. 3633 will ripen at 2:15 p.m. on September 15, 2026. It also says the Senate is out of business until September 14, apart from pro forma sessions on September 8 and September 10. Those scheduling facts concentrate the nearest meaningful evidence into a defined event after a period with limited scope for unexpected floor action.

Inference: a successful cloture vote would likely cause a material reassessment because it would show the measure clearing a procedural barrier on the way to Senate consideration. It would not establish the contract’s Yes condition. Subsequent Senate passage and presidential signature would still be required. A failed cloture vote, postponement, or withdrawal would weaken the near-term enactment case because it would remove the identified route to floor action while the year-end deadline continues to approach.

The price embeds several assumptions beyond vote counting

The Yes case depends on more than the premise that senators who supported committee action will support the bill at later stages. It assumes the Senate completes its work promptly, that the final legislative path satisfies the contract’s requirement for H.R. 3633 to pass both chambers, and that the bill reaches the president with enough calendar time for signature.

It also assumes that the broad policy scope does not create further delay. GovInfo describes H.R. 3633 as a framework for digital commodities and related amendments. The supplied research characterizes it as a market-structure measure involving broad regulatory questions. That scope can create opportunities for negotiations, revisions, or objections that are irrelevant to a narrow technical bill but consequential when enactment must occur before a fixed date.

Public legislative records create a second evidentiary tension

The supplied record contains a timing discrepancy that matters for evaluating claims of progress. Congress.gov and GovInfo list the bill’s last action as September 18, 2025, when it was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Banking Committee. Separately, the supplied Lummis release reports the committee’s 15-9 approval in May 2026, and the Senate Daily Press lists a September 15 cloture event.

The committee release and Senate schedule support the view that activity has advanced beyond the older public bill-history entry. Still, the discrepancy means a durable repricing case would benefit from matching official floor documentation: a recorded cloture result, a Senate roll call on final passage, and updated congressional bill status. Those records would narrow the gap between reported momentum and the public legislative trail used for settlement.

The main counter-signal is that passage momentum can outrun the clock

The strongest counterargument to the low Yes probability is the combination of a 294-134 House vote, a reported 15-9 Senate Banking vote, and a scheduled cloture motion. Together, those facts show the measure has moved farther than a bill with no cross-chamber support or scheduled Senate action. The market has also drawn $14.28 million in volume and $5.74 million in open interest, indicating that the contract’s defined legislative outcome has attracted sustained attention.

Still, attention and prior votes do not compress the remaining statutory sequence. Hypothetical repricing catalysts include a successful September 15 cloture vote followed by a final Senate passage date, official congressional records confirming that outcome, and a public signature event before the deadline. Evidence pointing the other way would include an unsuccessful cloture motion, a delayed floor schedule, procedural changes that require additional congressional action, or the absence of final passage as the calendar narrows. Each event matters because the contract resolves on enacted law, not on committee approval, stated support, or expected legislative intent.

Sources