The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act hopes to live up to its name and bring regulatory clarity to the US crypto industry, but a crypto legal expert warns it risks doing the opposite.
Yuriy Brisov, partner at Digital & Analogue Partners, says that Clarity may repeat the same structural mistake that the European Union made with its Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) by attempting to codify a fast-moving technology into static statutory categories.
For instance, Clarity excludes certain decentralized finance (DeFi) activities from being subject to the Act which appears fair on paper.
However, Brisov argues that freezing DeFis regulatory perimeter in legislation is itself the problem.
MiCA requires DeFi projects to run Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks, and Directive on Administrative Cooperation 8 (DAC8) requires reporting of clients residency and transactions.
DeFi is now one of the hottest areas in crypto, with about $100 billion locked in protocols.
MiCA’s treatment of DeFi is a good example.
If we look at MiCA, it is legally in place, but EU member states struggle with implementation because it was not drafted with DeFi in mind.
That may work for stablecoins, but not for DeFi.
First, Clarity will slow down the US.
The second issue is that it is not aligned with frameworks like MiCA and DAC8.
What does that mean if I am an American project?
Should I operate only in the United States?
Would I struggle to attract clients from Europe or other jurisdictions?
The US has shown its intention to align with the OECDs Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
That raises questions about how Claritys DeFi exemptions would interact with tax reporting and cross-border compliance obligations.
Would have been great is to follow Project Crypto, continue moving on a case-by-case basis and only legislate when you have something certain, like stablecoins.
With Genius, it was a necessary step because the world wanted to understand the US stance on stablecoins.
But even this Act has serious flaws.
I do not think they will adopt Clarity in the near future.
And if they do, it would be a huge mistake.
The statement about crypto securities is not complete and does not cover DeFi securities because that is a huge and difficult topic.
But at least they explained the rules.
For example, if I am a company and I issue my own shares, can I do that?
They said yes, a tokenized security is the same as a normal security.
A regular security has a paper certificate, and on blockchain, you have a token instead of a certificate.
They also said that synthetic securities, where someone sells you securities they do not actually hold, sound more like derivatives and fall under CFTC regulation.
That is not a security its either a scam or a derivative.
It brings much more clarity than Clarity does.
I fully agree with the SECs current policy under Paul Atkins.
We can see many projects moving to the US, including DeFi projects.
They say there is no specific crypto legislation in the US, but there is case law, like the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against Tornado Cash, Genslers prosecution history and statements from Paul Atkinss SEC.
Could CLARITY disrupt the pro-crypto momentum currently forming in the US?
I think businesses are generally hopeful that the Trump administration is fully supporting crypto and AI.
That is why everyone still wants to move to the US, regardless of their perspective on Clarity.
I attend many lawyer groups and conferences, and I even get tired of going because all we discuss is that nobody understands how MiCA works.
How does it work in Poland?
How does it work in Estonia?
In every country, it is different.
The US shows at least some opportunity.
We must understand that Paul Atkinss Project Crypto is only possible because Gensler was there before.
He did issue spotting.
He marked the map of different crypto risks.
The new commission said, lets work with these risks.,
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act aims to bring regulatory clarity to the US crypto industry, but a crypto legal expert warns it could do the opposite.
Yuriy Brisov, partner at Digital & Analogue Partners, says Clarity may repeat MiCA’s structural mistake by codifying a fast-moving technology into static statutory categories.
He notes that DeFi exemptions in the Act appear fair on paper, but freezing DeFi’s regulatory perimeter risks creating new blind spots.
MiCA requires DeFi projects to run Know-Your-Customer checks, and DAC8 imposes reporting of clients’ residency and transactions.
DeFi is now one of the hottest areas in crypto, with about $100 billion locked in protocols, illustrating why rigid boundaries may undercut innovation.
If the US diverges from frameworks like MiCA and DAC8, American projects could face cross-border challenges in attracting clients and meeting tax reporting requirements under CARF.
Supporters argue Clarity signals a pro-crypto stance, but critics warn it may slow progress and invite misalignment with international norms.
The US has shown intent to align with CARF, while enforcement actions and case law shape the crypto landscape.
Many projects move toward the US, but experts emphasize a case-by-case approach rather than broad perimeter legislation, especially for stablecoins.
Leave a Reply