Coin Center executive director Peter Van Valkenburgh warned that if Congress fails to pass the CLARITY Act, the crypto industry could be left exposed to a less sympathetic future U.S. government. In a post on X, he argued that rejecting statutory developer protections in favor of short-term business gains and dependence on the current administration’s discretion would invite a “grim” outcome for the sector.
Van Valkenburgh said the whole point of the CLARITY Act is not to rely on today’s regulators but to bind the next administration with clear law. Without those statutory safeguards, he cautioned, the industry would be governed by prosecutorial discretion, shifting political fashions and uncertainty rather than by transparent rules.
The CLARITY Act stalled in the Senate after banks, crypto firms and lawmakers failed to reach agreement on key provisions, including whether stablecoin yields should be permitted. The bill had aimed to create frameworks for registering crypto intermediaries, regulating digital assets and defining token classifications.
Absent legislative clarity, Van Valkenburgh warned, a future Department of Justice could step up prosecutions of developers of privacy tools by treating them as unlicensed money transmitters. He also cautioned that current regulatory interpretive guidance could be revoked, leaving firms exposed to renewed enforcement.
Under the prior administration, former SEC Chair Gary Gensler was criticized by segments of the crypto industry for shaping policy through enforcement and settlements instead of formal rulemaking. Since Gensler’s resignation on Jan. 20, 2025, supporters say the SEC has shifted course—dropping several long-standing enforcement actions and issuing friendlier guidance on how it will approach crypto.
Van Valkenburgh argued that relying on the present administration’s goodwill for temporary latitude or extra revenue would be a strategic mistake. “If we lose this moment because we thought we’d have a bit more revenue and a bit more latitude under the short-term friendly discretion of the current administration, then we lose our way,” he said, emphasizing the need for transparency, neutrality and openness to prevent future clampdowns.
The debate highlights a broader divide: whether the crypto industry should press for durable statutory protections now, or accept informal tolerance in hopes the regulatory climate remains favorable. Van Valkenburgh and others contend that only clear, binding law will protect developers, intermediaries and users from swings in enforcement priorities.
This article follows Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy. Readers should verify information independently.