Six months ago, the crypto industry believed the 2026 legislative calendar would give it a policy sweep across both stablecoins and digital asset markets. It was only last July that the GENIUS Act regulating stablecoins, the first tangible piece of successful crypto policy in the U.S., was signed into law.
Crypto players, then, could’ve been forgiven for holding out that the GENIUS Act’s sister piece of legislation, the CLARITY Act, would pass hot on its heels, particularly given the momentum behind it this spring.
But with the Senate now in recess until July 13, and comprehensive market structure legislation still stalled, the digital asset industry’s largest institutions find themselves in an unusual position. Banks are expanding digital asset custody, and payment companies are embedding stablecoins into cross-border settlement, all while asset managers continue broadening crypto investment products. Yet the laws intended to define how much of the blockchain financial services can compliantly operate remains unfinished.
The result is a disconnect where private capital is moving on implementation while public policy remains caught in legislative timing.
See more: Two Years Ago vs Today: Looking at Crypto Regulation in the US
Crypto Players Are Building Faster Than Washington Is Legislating
The PYMNTS Intelligence and Citi report “Chain Reaction: Regulatory Clarity as the Catalyst for Blockchain Adoption” found that blockchain’s next leap will be shaped by regulation. The 2025 passage of stablecoin legislation created expectations that broader market structure rules would follow, giving banks, brokerages, payment providers and asset managers long-awaited certainty around custody, trading, issuance and token classification.
That hasn’t happened, and the Senate’s 2026 summer calendar is underscoring that crypto has largely exhausted the “wait until regulation arrives” narrative. Institutional adoption is already underway. The question confronting executives is not whether regulation eventually comes, but how much uncertainty markets can absorb while waiting for it.
The CLARITY Act would resolve still-unanswered questions surrounding regulatory jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, treatment of digital commodities versus securities, exchange oversight, custody requirements and decentralized finance. While industry and lobbyist negotiations continue, the Senate’s recess extends another period during which financial institutions must continue making strategic investment decisions without knowing precisely what regulatory environment they are building toward.
On Tuesday, for example, the SEC issued a request for public comment on exchange-traded funds (ETFs) seeking to invest in innovative asset classes or engage in novel investment strategies. Per the agency’s own definition, novel ETF asset classes include crypto assets; commodity-focused instruments; single‐stock strategies; heightened leverage; blockchain-enabled opportunities; private assets; event contracts; and/or a combination of any of the above.
The request represents an evolution from regulating crypto products individually toward regulating crypto as an integrated component of modern capital markets.
See more: Europe’s Crypto Reset Begins: Who’s In, Who’s Out Under MiCA
Policy Timing Has Become Its Own Form of Market Risk
Every month without finalized rules also effectively increases the premium attached to scale. Large financial institutions possess compliance teams, legal budgets and capital reserves capable of absorbing ambiguity for extended periods. Smaller FinTech firms, emerging stablecoin issuers and venture-backed startups generally do not.
“It’s almost a full-time job to keep up with all the changes on the legislative front, on the regulatory front, on the technological front,” Mike Katz, partner in Manatt’s Financial Services Group, told PYMNTS during the most recent “From the Block“ conversation.
That dynamic may ultimately reshape competitive positioning more than the substance of regulation itself. Firms with sufficient resources continue hiring engineers, integrating custody platforms, negotiating banking relationships and preparing products for launch. Smaller competitors face the decision of investing ahead of legal clarity or delaying growth until rules become clearer.
Of course, enterprise executives are also putting their own crypto interest on hold. Findings in “Waiting for Certainty: Why Most CFOs Are Holding Back on Crypto and Stablecoins,” a recent installment of PYMNTS Intelligence’s 2026 Certainty Project, shows that most middle market companies remain cautious about digital assets. Usage is limited, with 13% of firms using stablecoins and 5% employing other cryptocurrencies.
Despite the ups and downs in the U.S., other jurisdictions are moving ahead with clear crypto policies. On Wednesday (July 1), the EU’s MiCA framework took full effect. The bloc’s financial regulators have approved roughly 200–230 crypto firms across the European Economic Area, although only around a dozen operate at meaningful exchange scale. Before MiCA took effect, there were more than 1,200 previously registered EU crypto businesses, meaning roughly four out of five legacy operators failed to transition into the new regime.