The Clarity Act stalled. Bankers aren’t hitting the brakes yet on crypto dealmaking

A bid to create a lasting federal rulebook for digital assets stalled in the Senate on Sept. 15, when the Clarity Act failed a procedural vote 49-50, short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Lawmakers had struggled to resolve disputes over ethics restrictions for senior officials with crypto business ties, concerns about investor protections, and anti-money-laundering issues. With midterm campaigning consuming the congressional calendar, passage this year became unlikely.

Market and deal advisers, however, say the legislative setback has not halted crypto merger-and-acquisition activity across the board. Some bankers argue that agency-level steps by the SEC and CFTC are providing enough forward motion for many transactions. The SEC approved a temporary Innovation Exemption permitting limited onchain trading of tokenized U.S. equities shortly after the vote and on Oct. 1 proposed a rule to clarify how investment firms may custody customer crypto assets. The CFTC has also eased certain barriers, including relief for some software providers and updated guidance on tokenized investments and blockchain-based recordkeeping.

Industry figures point to tokenization, licensing and distribution as drivers that continue to attract strategic buyers. Disclosed deal value in the digital-asset sector reached $9.7 billion in the first half of 2026, a 44% increase from a year earlier, according to CryptoRank Research. That rise was concentrated: announced acquisitions fell 8% to 87 deals, and the four largest transactions accounted for 76% of disclosed value. High-profile transactions cited include Payward’s agreements to buy payments firm Reap for $600 million and derivatives platform Bitnomial for up to $550 million, alongside a $100 million investment from Nasdaq.

Still, some executives and investors warn that agency actions are not a complete replacement for legislation. Proponents of a congressional framework say a statute would remove lingering legal ambiguity for assets whose regulatory status remains contested and could unlock broader and more diverse deal flow. Others frame the Clarity Act’s failure not as a new negative development but as the preservation of existing uncertainty, producing uneven effects across subsectors depending on how clearly regulators have spoken.

Dealmakers appear to be triaging targets: assets and business lines that fall under clearer regulatory guidance are more likely to attract bids, while companies with exposure to unresolved questions may face higher hurdles. In that environment, market participants say many transactions will persist, especially where licensing, technology and distribution add tangible value, but some potential buyers may remain cautious until either Congress acts or agencies issue more definitive rules.