Fidelity has called on the Senate to pass the CLARITY Act, saying clear digital asset regulations are essential to strengthen investor confidence and reinforce U.S. leadership in crypto markets. The asset manager made the case in a statement tied to newly released legislative text for the bill.
The CLARITY Act, introduced earlier this month, aims to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets by clarifying which agencies oversee different categories of crypto products and activity. The bill's text was released July 22, and Fidelity's push follows weeks of industry-wide appeals for Congress to codify rules around stablecoins, crypto custody, and asset classification.
Fidelity is one of the largest institutional investors in bitcoin, holding over 600,000 BTC across its corporate and fund accounts as of mid-2026. The company operates a regulated cryptocurrency custody service and has introduced spot bitcoin and ethereum ETFs that now hold tens of billions of dollars in assets under management.
The asset manager's statement centered on three points: that clear rules reduce investor risk, that regulatory certainty unlocks capital deployment, and that the U.S. risks losing ground to other jurisdictions if crypto remains in a legal gray zone. Fidelity did not specify which provisions of the CLARITY Act it views as most important, nor did it address unresolved disputes between the Treasury Department, the SEC, and the CFTC over asset classification that the bill attempts to settle.
Senate leadership has not announced a floor vote timeline for the CLARITY Act. The bill has bipartisan support but faces questions over whether its definitions of securities and commodities will survive amendment or override in conference with House versions of competing crypto regulatory proposals.
Fidelity's intervention adds to a legislative effort that has stalled for months on jurisdictional turf wars between federal agencies. The company's previous crypto advocacy has focused narrowly on custody standards and ETF approval rather than broader congressional testimony on regulatory architecture, making this a broader policy position than the firm has typically taken.
