Sen. Lummis says $150M in law enforcement funding targets crypto scammers, not lower compliance. Industry and lawmakers meet in Chicago as the bill nears a Senate floor vote.
Alpha Score of 60 reflects moderate overall profile with strong momentum, moderate value, moderate quality, moderate sentiment.
Senator Cynthia Lummis defended the CLARITY Act on Monday, arguing the bill strengthens enforcement against digital asset fraud rather than lowering compliance standards. She pointed to $150 million in new funding directed at investigations.
"The Clarity Act delivers $150 million for law enforcement to track down scammers and bad actors in the digital asset space," Lummis wrote on X.
The pushback comes as White House officials met with law enforcement to discuss the U.S. crypto bill. Those talks centered on how developer protections might affect the ability to fight illicit finance, and lawmakers questioned how enforcement actions would work under the new framework.
Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Institute, pushed back on that narrative. She urged lawmakers to keep the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) intact within the CLARITY Act. The BRCA language shields blockchain developers, validators, and node operators from being classified as money transmitters when they do not control customer funds.
"The BRCA draws a bright line: if you write open-source software, run a node, or validate transactions – and never take custody or control of anyone's money – you are not a money transmitter," Smith posted on X. She said the provision "must stay in the bill, fully and intact."
Smith believes the CLARITY Act is close to a Senate floor vote. Industry leaders, regulators, and lawmakers are preparing for talks in Chicago on the future of U.S. crypto regulation.
Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), who pushed the original Agriculture Committee version through the House last year, will attend the Chicago meetings. He has stayed involved as the Senate works on its version of the bill.
The Ripple CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, also entered the debate. He dismissed Jamie Dimon's criticism of the bill, saying the JPMorgan CEO did a "disservice" with his comments. "It is either intentional misrepresentation or negligent to make support for the CLARITY Act go away," Garlinghouse said.
Garlinghouse argued that claims of weakened compliance oversight are misleading and that the bill actually tightens enforcement. His remarks aligned with Lummis' defense of the funding mechanism.
No date has been set for the Senate floor vote.
For context on related regulatory developments, see the coverage of the Binance EU license rejection and its liquidity implications.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.