According to BlockBeats, on September 16, the U.S. Senate held a crucial procedural vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) in the early hours of the morning to decide whether to terminate the debate on the motion to "enter the bill for consideration," which requires 60 votes.

The vote ended with 50 in favor and 50 against. This means the Clarity Act will not proceed to formal Senate consideration in the near future. While the bill still has a foundation of support in principle, the current version has failed to forge a sufficiently broad bipartisan coalition.

This vote means that in the next vote, at least 10 senators who voted against the bill will need to change their minds, or the bill will need to secure an equivalent amount of new support through renegotiation. In bipartisan legislation in the Senate, a 10-vote shortfall already indicates significant resistance to the bill. Even if 60 votes are secured in the future, the bill will still need to undergo amendments, a possible second vote to end the debate, and the final passage process.

During the final campaign rally before the vote, Republican Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, a major advocate for U.S. crypto legislation, stated that the revised bill has incorporated more ethical constraints, mechanisms for state attorneys general to participate in law enforcement, authority to address the risk of stablecoin deposit outflows, and protection clauses for developers. These compromises are sufficient to create conditions for bipartisan progress on the bill.

She also viewed this procedural vote as a crucial window, stating that if the bill cannot even cross the 60-vote threshold to enter the formal review process, the room for further negotiations will be significantly narrowed, and continued delays will cause the United States to fall behind other countries in the competition for digital asset regulation and financial innovation.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren also spoke before the vote, warning that the current bill text fails to adequately constrain potential conflicts of interest arising from the president's and senior officials' involvement in crypto businesses. She argued that without stricter ethical and consumer protection provisions, the legislation would leave room for politicians to profit from the digital asset market.

Warren stated that she supports clearer regulatory rules for the crypto industry, but rulemaking should not grant special access to politicians and their families. She is particularly concerned about the Trump family's expanding crypto business, arguing that Congress needs to address the conflicts of interest involving self-employed public officials, token issuance, and stablecoin businesses when advancing market structure legislation.