I have been watching this regulatory story unfold for years, and I can honestly say it feels different now. I have spent a significant amount of time on research around U.S. crypto legislation, enforcement patterns, agency turf wars, and industry lobbying cycles. Most of the time, optimism in this space turns out to be premature. But when Ripple CEO says the CLARITY bill has a 90 percent chance of passing by April, it does not sound like casual confidence. It sounds calculated.
At the center of this discussion is the proposed Digital Asset Market Structure CLARITY Act, a bill designed to finally draw a clear legal line between which digital assets fall under securities law and which fall under commodities regulation. For years, that distinction has defined the tension between the and the . I have watched companies try to build while navigating overlapping interpretations, enforcement actions, and shifting guidance. The absence of clarity has not just been a legal inconvenience. It has shaped investment decisions, delayed product launches, and pushed some innovation offshore.
Garlinghouse’s remarks came at a moment when Washington appears more engaged than at any time in recent memory. According to recent reports, discussions between lawmakers, regulators, industry executives, and even banking representatives have intensified, with the White House reportedly pushing for resolution on key sticking points. I have been following these negotiations closely, and what stands out is not just the public optimism but the behind the scenes urgency. There is a recognition that the United States risks falling behind if it cannot provide a stable regulatory framework.
The core issue the CLARITY bill attempts to resolve is deceptively simple: when is a digital asset a security, and when is it a commodity. In practice, that answer determines everything. If an asset is deemed a security, it falls under the authority of the SEC, triggering disclosure requirements, registration rules, and investor protection frameworks designed for traditional capital markets. If it is considered a commodity, oversight shifts toward the CFTC, which historically regulates derivatives and futures markets. I have spent time reviewing how both agencies have approached crypto, and the overlap has created a gray zone that benefits no one.
Ripple’s own history makes Garlinghouse’s confidence particularly noteworthy. The company has spent years in a high profile legal battle with the SEC over the status of XRP. I have watched that case reshape industry conversations around token distribution and secondary market sales. For Ripple, a clear statutory definition would not just be symbolic. It would redefine the playing field.
What also complicates the bill’s path is the debate over stablecoins, particularly whether holders can earn yield or rewards on them. Traditional banks have expressed concerns that yield bearing stablecoins could compete directly with deposits. Crypto firms argue that yield mechanisms are part of what makes blockchain based finance dynamic and competitive. I have followed this debate closely because it reflects a broader tension between legacy financial infrastructure and digital alternatives. It is not just about tokens. It is about control over financial rails.
Garlinghouse’s 90 percent estimate hinges on the belief that lawmakers are close to compromise. Reports suggest that negotiations have narrowed differences, with timelines pointing toward a possible vote by April. I have seen many deadlines in Washington come and go, but this one appears tied to coordinated political will rather than vague aspiration. The involvement of executive branch officials suggests the administration understands the economic stakes.
If the CLARITY bill passes, the immediate impact will not be a market rally headline or a single price spike. Its real effect would be structural. Exchanges would know how to register. Developers would understand compliance expectations before launching tokens. Institutional investors would gain a clearer risk framework. I have always believed that infrastructure clarity, not hype cycles, determines long term capital allocation.
There is also a psychological layer. For years, crypto in the United States has operated under what many describe as regulation by enforcement. Even when companies aimed to comply, they often lacked a defined pathway. A law that explicitly divides oversight responsibilities would signal a transition from reactive enforcement to proactive governance. That shift alone could recalibrate how global investors view the U.S. market.
Still, a 90 percent probability is not certainty. Legislative processes are unpredictable, and political trade offs can alter timelines quickly. I have learned to treat confident forecasts in Washington with caution. Yet the tone around this bill feels measured rather than promotional. Garlinghouse is not promising transformation overnight. He is pointing to alignment that has been years in the making.
As I have been watching this unfold, what stands out most is the maturity of the conversation. Early crypto debates were ideological. Today’s discussions are procedural and structural. They revolve around jurisdiction, definitions, and implementation. That evolution itself signals how far the industry has come.
If April does mark the passage of the CLARITY bill, it will not simply resolve a dispute between two regulators. It will represent a foundational moment in how digital assets integrate into the American financial system. And after spending so much time on research and observing the push and pull between agencies, lawmakers, and companies like Ripple, I can say this: clarity, more than volatility or valuation, is what the market has been waiting for.