A vote on the U.S. Senate’s cryptocurrency market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, is set for May 14, but analysis says significant political and stakeholder hurdles remain before it can be enacted into law.

The Block, a blockchain-focused outlet, reported on May 11 local time that investment bank TD Cowen said the vote is less a sign that a final deal is near than a procedural step that moves the fight to the full Senate.

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee on May 9 officially confirmed the voting schedule for the CLARITY Act. The bill is already facing strong opposition over issues including stablecoin revenue-sharing structures and provisions to prevent conflicts of interest among public officials.

Jaret Seiberg (자렛 세이버그), a managing director at TD Cowen’s Washington Research Group, said the vote is not a signal of agreement but closer to a move that shifts the fight to the full-Senate voting stage.

Markets also see the timetable as an important variable. Seiberg said that for the bill to pass this year, the Senate must complete a full vote before its August recess. He said committee passage does not mean legislative success and that significant political hurdles would remain afterward.

If the bill passes the Senate Banking Committee, it would move to merger negotiations with a separate cryptocurrency bill being prepared by the Senate Agriculture Committee. Senate leaders are expected to negotiate amendments with both Democrats and Republicans to secure the 60 votes needed for final passage.

One of the key issues is the stablecoin profit structure. The cryptocurrency industry wants private operators to be able to actively use returns from managing stablecoin reserves, while banks worry about intensified competition with the traditional financial system.

Seiberg said it will not be easy to find a compromise that satisfies both cryptocurrency firms including Coinbase and the traditional banking sector. He said senators could ultimately face a situation in which they effectively must choose a winner between powerful stakeholders.

In politics, conflict-of-interest provisions are emerging as a bigger variable. Some see even Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, known for a pro-cryptocurrency stance, as potentially finding it difficult to support the bill without a mechanism limiting senior public officials and their families from involvement in cryptocurrency businesses.

In this context, market participants say controversy continues over U.S. President Donald Trump and his family’s participation in cryptocurrency businesses. TD Cowen said it does not see a high likelihood that Trump’s side would agree to strong ethics provisions that could affect their business interests.

Democrats also face a significant political burden. Seiberg said that if Democrats retake the House after the midterm elections, pressure could grow to investigate Trump-related cryptocurrency businesses. He said that if Democratic lawmakers support the bill without strong conflict-of-interest provisions, they could face criticism that they effectively condoned potential conflicts of interest.

The bill also has unresolved issues including anti-money laundering (AML), the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and standards for regulating market manipulation. Recently, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) staffing gap and the possibility that cryptocurrencies could be used to evade overseas sanctions have also been cited as new variables.

TD Cowen remained cautious on the chances of the bill passing this year. Seiberg said the possibility of direct intervention by Trump cannot be ruled out for final legislation. He said that if key issues are not resolved this year, legislative discussions could carry over into 2027, and the actual start of regulation could be delayed until 2029.

Markets see the May 14 vote as more likely to be a starting point for full-scale political negotiations and stakeholder coordination than an endpoint for finalising a cryptocurrency regulatory framework.