All news is rigorously fact-checked and reviewed by leading blockchain experts and seasoned industry insiders.
- The CLARITY Act failed to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
- CFTC Chair Michael Selig says rulemaking will continue.
- The agency plans to rely on its existing statutory authority.
- Congress is still needed to rewrite the broader legal framework.
The Senate’s failure to advance the CLARITY Act has put a narrower route to U.S. crypto market structure in focus: how much the CFTC can build using powers it already has.
The legislation received 50 votes in favor and 49 against on Tuesday, short of the 60 required to invoke cloture and proceed. Sen. Thom Tillis changed his vote as a procedural step that preserves the possibility of reconsideration, meaning the legislation is stalled rather than necessarily finished.
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig responded Wednesday with a clear signal that the agency does not intend to wait for another congressional vote.
“We will help him get the job done using our existing statutory authorities.”
Selig said Americans deserve regulatory clarity, legal certainty and consumer protections in crypto markets, adding that the CFTC is “locked in and ready to ship its rules.”
— Mike Selig (@ChairmanSelig) September 16, 2026
That makes the limits of those existing authorities the immediate question for U.S. crypto regulation.
The CFTC Already Has a Framework It Can Use
The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC an established regulatory architecture for derivatives markets.
Designated contract markets, or DCMs, operate under Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 7.
They are supervised by the CFTC and must comply with 23 core principles covering areas including market integrity, financial resources and operational safeguards. The detailed requirements sit under Part 38 of CFTC regulations.
That gives the agency several routes for advancing crypto regulation without new legislation:
- Crypto derivatives: Futures, options and qualifying derivatives can operate through existing CFTC-supervised structures.
- Regulated exchanges: Companies can seek designation as DCMs by demonstrating compliance with Section 5 and Part 38 requirements.
- New products: Existing DCMs have procedures for submitting new products and rules through CFTC approval or certification processes.
- Market safeguards: Contracts must not be readily susceptible to manipulation, while position limits or accountability requirements apply where appropriate.
- Exchange infrastructure: DCM requirements extend beyond trading rules to areas such as financial resources, risk controls and system safeguards.
Crypto derivatives are therefore one of the areas where Selig’s promise can translate most readily into regulatory action.
The CFTC demonstrated that route earlier this year when it allowed a regulated U.S. venue to list a Bitcoin perpetual-style product, bringing a structure associated heavily with offshore crypto markets into an established federal framework.
Existing Authority Has a Boundary
Selig’s statement does not mean the CFTC can reproduce the CLARITY Act through regulation.
The stalled legislation was designed to change the statutory framework itself, including the treatment of digital commodities and the division of regulatory responsibilities across parts of the crypto market. The Senate’s revised text also addressed issues involving DeFi and federal oversight of cash or spot digital commodity markets.
Agency rulemaking starts from a different position. The CFTC can interpret and implement powers Congress has already delegated to it, but it cannot simply create new statutory jurisdiction because legislation failed to pass.
That leaves spot markets and parts of DeFi particularly important to watch. Derivatives already fit within a mature CFTC framework. Other crypto activities raise harder questions about how far existing commodity law can reach without Congress changing the underlying statute.
This is also why Selig’s wording is important. He did not say the CFTC would implement CLARITY without Congress. He specifically pointed to the agency’s existing statutory authorities.
Rulemaking and Legislation Offer Different Certainty
The Senate vote also changes the type of regulatory certainty the industry can expect.
Formal CFTC rules can impose meaningful and enforceable requirements, but they remain anchored to authority already delegated by Congress. Future administrations can pursue new rulemaking, alter interpretations within statutory boundaries or change enforcement priorities.
A new statute can alter those boundaries themselves.
Reuters reported after Tuesday’s vote that regulators can continue using existing powers, while experts cautioned that rules developed without legislation could remain more vulnerable to changes in political leadership.
For exchanges and other infrastructure providers making multi-year decisions about U.S. operations, that difference can affect how much capital they are prepared to commit before the legislative picture becomes clearer.
Selig’s Promise Now Has Measurable Tests
The focus now moves from what the CFTC chairman says to what appears in the regulatory pipeline.
Existing exchanges can submit new products and rule changes through established CFTC procedures. New trading venues can apply for DCM status, with the Commission generally reviewing materially complete applications under a statutory 180-day process.
New crypto derivatives, DCM applications, proposed regulations and public-comment periods will therefore show how aggressively the agency intends to use the authority Selig highlighted.
Congress still controls whether that perimeter is ultimately expanded through legislation. Tuesday’s vote left that question unresolved.
For now, the CFTC’s filings and proposed rules will define what Selig means by moving ahead under existing law.
What remains outside those rules will show more precisely what still requires Congress.
Be the first to comment