Three of the crypto industry's most influential executives — Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, Solana Foundation President Lily Liu, and Binance CEO Richard Teng — used a recent panel at the Binance Online event to explain why the Clarity Act has become the industry's most-watched piece of pending legislation.
Each executive approached the topic from a different angle, but their analyses converged on a shared conclusion: the current regulatory environment, while constructive, requires legislative codification to deliver durable institutional adoption.
The Institutional Argument
Garlinghouse framed the issue in terms of how large financial institutions approach regulatory risk.
"The big financial institutions have leaned out because they don't know if the next head of the SEC might be more like the last one, which was very aggressively attacking and frankly seeking to kill the industry in the United States."
He explained that banks operate on long planning horizons that require regulatory durability beyond any single administration. "Banks in the United States have had enough experience and long tenure to know that the next head of the SEC might be more like the last one."
Garlinghouse acknowledged that current SEC leadership has been supportive, describing Chairman Paul Atkins as "a very constructive partner that is protecting consumers but also unlocking innovation." His argument was that constructive leadership alone is insufficient for institutions making multi-decade capital allocation decisions.
He noted that current institutional crypto activity represents a fraction of what's possible. "Some of the names that have started to dabble — Franklin Templeton and BlackRock — they are leaning in. But as a percentage of the capital they have available to them, it's still tiny."
Garlinghouse offered a specific prediction on timing: "I think these prediction markets have the likelihood of around 70% of this passes this year. So I think we may see President Trump sign something before the end of the summer."
The Structural Argument
Liu approached the topic from the perspective of why US legislation matters disproportionately in a global industry.
"The United States is about 15% of global GDP, but between 50 and 60% of global capital markets."
She explained that this asymmetry creates particular weight for US regulatory decisions. "Given the dominance and influence of US on the global economy, many people will look to the United States for guidance. And not just in a spiritual sense, but the ability to actually participate in a blockchain world, because ultimately at some point it still hits the fiat banking system, which the United States obviously has a lot of influence into."
Liu also articulated a regulatory philosophy that has shaped industry frustration over the past several years. "Regulating through regulation rather than regulating through enforcement is a really important thing for us to get right right now."
The distinction matters because enforcement-driven regulation establishes rules through individual cases and settlements rather than through written guidance that builders can read in advance. Liu argued that codified legislation provides the clarity that enforcement actions cannot.
She also noted that even friendly administrations are temporary. "We came from a very hostile administration from 2020 to 2024. Now it's a very crypto-friendly administration. But in the same way we had a sea change a couple of years ago, you can have a sea change again."
The International Argument
Teng added context about how US legislation affects global regulatory dynamics, pointing to the recently passed GENIUS Act as a working example.
"It's not only prompted institutions to act within the US, but it prompted international regulators and policymakers to formulate their own stablecoin to make sure that they keep pace with what's happening in the US. Hong Kong issued their own stablecoin and stablecoin licenses recently."
Teng described the pattern as a two-way effect of US policy. "Under the last administration, a lot of good crypto firms' developments started to flow out from the US because of that anti-crypto environment. Under President Trump, you'll see a lot of new developments coming out from the US again."
He noted that the international response to US clarity tends to follow predictable patterns, with jurisdictions including Hong Kong, the UAE, and Singapore moving to align their frameworks when US legislation creates competitive pressure.
What the Clarity Act Would Address
The Clarity Act, currently moving through the Senate Banking Committee, would establish codified rules for crypto categories beyond stablecoins, including questions of asset classification, custody requirements, and exchange operations.
Liu described the expected effect by reference to GENIUS. "What happened after the GENIUS Act certainly unleashed the whole payments industry in the United States, where people saw stablecoins as being a really foundational upgrade in terms of how you move money around the world. The Clarity Act would do the same for non-payments use cases — regulated financial institutions being able to actually sort of jump into blockchain."
Garlinghouse described the expected institutional response in similar terms. "With the Clarity Act, you'll see the largest financial institutions leaning in in a way we've never seen before."
Where the Three Executives Agree
Across different framings, the three executives converged on the same core point: the current crypto-friendly regulatory environment is an asset that requires codification to become permanent. Friendly administrations are temporary. Legislation is durable. The window for codification is open now, and the panelists' shared position was that the industry should treat its passage as the central near-term priority.
Garlinghouse's 70% probability estimate, drawn from prediction markets, represents the most concrete near-term forecast. Whether that estimate proves accurate will likely shape the trajectory of US crypto adoption over the next several years.
Anais
Weatherly