A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Securities Clarity Act of 2025 seeks to amend existing securities laws. The primary goal is to exclude "investment contract assets" from the legal definition of a security. This change would affect the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970. An investment contract asset is defined as a fungible digital representation of value that can be exclusively possessed and transferred person to person without necessary reliance on an intermediary. These assets are recorded on a cryptographically secured public distributed ledger and are sold or transferred pursuant to an investment contract.
Yes
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Providing clarity for digital asset transfers can benefit businesses operating in the fintech and crypto sectors.
- Scored +3
Is this likely to grow the economy?
By providing regulatory clarity for digital assets, the bill may foster innovation and growth in the digital economy.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Excluding certain digital assets from securities law may reduce regulatory oversight and protections for investors.
- Scored -2
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
By excluding certain digital assets from securities laws, this bill reduces the regulatory reach of current financial oversight mechanisms.
- Scored -2
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill limits federal securities law jurisdiction over specific digital assets.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Facilitation of direct transfers: Under Section 2(a)(1), the definition of an investment contract asset includes digital representations of value that can be "exclusively possessed and transferred, person to person, without necessary reliance on an intermediary."
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Providing clarity for digital asset transfers can benefit businesses operating in the fintech and crypto sectors.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — By excluding certain digital assets from securities laws, this bill reduces the regulatory reach of current financial oversight mechanisms.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill limits federal securities law jurisdiction over specific digital assets.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — By providing regulatory clarity for digital assets, the bill may foster innovation and growth in the digital economy. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Excluding certain digital assets from securities law may reduce regulatory oversight and protections for investors.
- 3/26/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Darren SotoDemocrat · Florida