TL;DR
- US crypto market structure legislation is moving procedurally, but unresolved disputes over regulatory authority, DeFi scope, and ethics continue to slow final agreement.
- A planned January markup signals progress in process, not passage, as lawmakers avoid locking in decisions ahead of the midterms.
- With core issues still unsettled, realistic timelines for passage and implementation now extend toward 2027–2029.
Just weeks ago, messaging around US crypto legislation suggested the finish line was in sight. Lawmakers briefed industry leaders, and working groups met behind closed doors. Public comments hinted that a long-awaited framework was close to completion. That narrative has since shifted. Analysts at TD Cowen now point to passage drifting toward 2027, with full implementation potentially stretching to 2029. The sudden reset has put the delay of the crypto market structure legislation back at the center of the debate. It has also raised questions about what actually changed between December optimism and January caution.
Rather than signaling collapse, the shift reflects a familiar pattern in Washington. Progress in tone is often followed by restraint once unresolved issues resurface. The evolving timeline shows how easily momentum slows when the process moves faster than substance.
What a January Markup Actually Signals
The current focal point is a planned Senate committee markup on January 15, 2026. Markups are often framed as the next decisive step. In reality, a markup is procedural progress, not a commitment to passage. Committees can debate text and propose amendments. They can also leave core disputes unresolved. This is why we can expect this Senate crypto bill markup to generate headlines without guaranteeing a floor vote or a finalized law.
In that context, delaying the crypto market structure legislation reflects risk management more than dysfunction. Markup allows lawmakers to demonstrate engagement without binding decisions. It keeps industry stakeholders involved and reassures markets that talks are ongoing. At the same time, it preserves flexibility if political or policy risks intensify. That makes markup an attractive interim step as concerns about delays in US crypto regulation remain unresolved.
The Substance Still Blocking the Finish Line
Despite months of drafting, several substantive issues continue to prevent closure. These are not minor technicalities. They are structural questions that determine how crypto markets would operate under federal law. Together, they explain the persistent delay in passing the crypto market structure legislation, despite procedural milestones moving forward.
Jurisdictional clarity: SEC vs CFTC
One unresolved pillar is the SEC CFTC jurisdiction dispute. Lawmakers have yet to fully agree on how authority should be divided between the two agencies. The disagreement is most visible around spot markets and token classification. Any allocation of power creates institutional winners and losers. That makes compromise difficult. Analysts argue that locking in jurisdictional boundaries ahead of midterm elections carries political risk, which encourages delay rather than resolution.
DeFi definitions and accountability
A second challenge lies in defining what “decentralized” means in law. DeFi protocols do not fit neatly into traditional regulatory categories. This raises questions about who bears responsibility when no clear intermediary exists. Vague definitions invite enforcement by interpretation. Precise language risks excluding or capturing entire categories of activity. This tension helps explain the continued delay in passing the legislation, despite multiple rounds of revisions.
Ethics and conflict-of-interest provisions
A third obstacle involves ethics provisions in crypto regulation. Reports indicate that disagreement over conflict-of-interest language has emerged as a late-stage sticking point. Such provisions are politically sensitive. Removing them invites criticism. Strengthening them increases near-term exposure for lawmakers. Delaying effective dates becomes a way to keep ethics language intact while reducing immediate impact. That dynamic further extends the timeline.
>>> Read more: SEC Token Taxonomy: Atkins Says Most Tokens Aren’t Securities
Why Process Advances While Substance Stalls
Taken together, these unresolved issues explain the disconnect between procedural movement and legislative closure. The delay in crypto market structure legislation resembles a rational equilibrium. Process can advance without forcing decisions on jurisdiction, DeFi scope, or ethics. Markup absorbs pressure from industry and markets. It also buys time for lawmakers to weigh trade-offs behind the scenes.
As midterms approach, appetite for irreversible choices declines. Floor votes create clear records and political risk. Continued negotiation does not. In this environment, delay is not accidental. It is the predictable outcome of unresolved substance paired with a cautious legislative calendar shaped by broader dynamics delaying US crypto regulation.
What the 2027–2029 Timeline Really Implies
Recent TD Cowen projections of a 2027 passage window and 2029 implementation have sharpened focus on timing. Instead of a short delay, the road to the crypto market structure legilation now increasingly resembles a multi-year arc. This 2027-2029 timeline isn’t simple pessimism. It already accounts for potential reintroduction in a new Congress, extended rulemaking, and the risk of legal challenges once rules are finalized.
Even if lawmakers agree on text, implementation would still take time. Agencies would need to draft and enforce regulations. That process has historically stretched well beyond passage. In that sense, the timeline to a final market structure legislation approved by the House and the Senate now signals deferred impact rather than imminent change.
Clarity Deferred, Not Abandoned
The market structure effort is not collapsing. It is also not closing. But the delay in this crypto market structure legislation highlights how unresolved power questions, definitional boundaries, and ethics provisions still outweigh procedural momentum. Until those issues are settled, clarity will remain a promise tied to future calendars rather than current law. For now, uncertainty in US crypto regulation continues to shape the policy landscape.
Readers’ frequently asked questions
What legislative stage has the crypto market structure bill reached so far?
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the legislation as the CLARITY Act and sent it to the U.S. Senate. In the Senate, the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee are reviewing the bill and preparing potential revisions. A committee markup has been scheduled for mid-January 2026, but the Senate has not yet agreed to advance the House-passed version in its current form.
What does it mean that the Senate is not advancing the House-passed version?
It means the bill cannot become law in its current form. The Senate may revise the text through committee markup, propose amendments, or decline to bring it to a floor vote. Until both chambers pass the same version of the legislation, it cannot be sent to the president for signature.
What happens to the legislation if it is not passed before the end of this Congress?
If the bill is not finalized before the current Congress ends in January 2027, it expires automatically. Any future effort would require reintroducing the legislation in the next Congress, reopening committee review and negotiations rather than continuing from the current draft.
What’s in it for you? Action items you might want to consider
Monitor Senate committee actions, not headline timelines
Public messaging around momentum can change quickly, but meaningful progress appears in committee markups, amendments, and recorded votes. Tracking formal Senate actions provides a clearer signal than relying on optimistic timelines or political statements.
Plan for continued regulatory uncertainty in the US
Until the Senate passes a final version of the legislation, existing regulatory frameworks and enforcement practices remain in effect. Businesses, developers, and investors should continue operating under current rules rather than assuming near-term regulatory changes.
Account for longer planning horizons
With passage and implementation potentially extending beyond the current congressional term, compliance planning, product launches, and market-entry decisions may need to factor in prolonged uncertainty rather than imminent regulatory clarity.
