Ripple executives are pressing senators to support the CLARITY Act, arguing that rejecting the digital asset legislation would preserve regulatory gaps that leave consumers vulnerable to misconduct, uncertainty, and risks similar to those exposed by the FTX collapse.
Key Takeaways
Ripple says rejecting the CLARITY Act would leave crypto holders exposed to bad actors exploiting regulatory gaps.U.S. digital asset markets have outpaced federal protections, leaving vulnerabilities similar to those seen in the FTX collapse.Ripple says Congress must choose between clear rules for all participants or preserving gaps bad actors can exploit.The Ripple executive stated on X:
Belive noted the bipartisan legislation was moving closer to a full Senate vote. She framed its progress as an opportunity to establish protections for people already participating in U.S. digital asset markets. She stressed: “The bipartisan CLARITY Act is now advancing towards a vote on the Senate floor, and it is a vote for consumer protection.”
Her argument centered on the gap between established digital asset markets and the federal rules governing them. She pointed to FTX as evidence of the consequences when customer funds remain exposed without clear oversight, emphasizing:
“U.S. digital asset markets are here, but the federal rules to protect consumers have not kept up. The same regulatory gaps that let bad actors like FTX collapse and wipe out customer funds are still wide open today.”
Would Shared SEC and CFTC Authority Close the Regulatory Gaps?Belive said consumers face uncertainty over which protections apply, which agency is responsible for oversight, and what obligations companies must satisfy. The CLARITY Act would coordinate authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
“Today, consumers are left guessing what protections apply, which regulator is responsible, and what standards companies must meet. The CLARITY Act would fix that – giving the CFTC and SEC clear, shared jurisdiction over digital asset markets, and by requiring real regulatory oversight before tokens hit the market,” she described.
That proposed structure anchors Ripple’s case for the bill. Belive argued that responsible companies may follow appropriate standards voluntarily, but voluntary compliance cannot guarantee that every market participant follows the same rules. The executive noted:
“Good actors will always do the right thing, but consumers deserve a level playing field. That is the choice in front of Congress right now: put clear guardrails in place for everyone, or leave consumers exposed to bad actors exploiting the gaps.”
The question before senators is not whether digital asset markets should face regulation. It is whether Congress will define regulatory responsibilities and market standards or retain the existing system.
Ripple Says Rejection Would Preserve the Conditions That Failed ConsumersBelive directly challenged lawmakers who support regulation while opposing the CLARITY Act. She said rejecting a bill intended to create a federal framework would preserve a status quo that has already failed consumers.
“You can’t credibly call yourself pro-regulation and vote no on the bill built to actually create regulation. At some point, opposing CLARITY is just a vote to preserve the status quo – and the status quo is what failed consumers in the first place,” she concluded.
“A vote against the CLARITY Act is a vote to leave the same unregulated conditions in place to be exploited by bad actors. We’ve seen this movie. Let’s not watch the sequel.”
