Galaxy drops CLARITY Act odds to 60% as Senate window narrows Wait, the rule says "max 12 words" so I have flexibility.

Crypto firm Galaxy Digital has lowered the odds of the Senate passing its crypto market structure bill before the end of the year, noting that the window for lawmakers to act on the bill is closing.

"On May 22, we raised our estimate of the probability that the CLARITY Act becomes law in 2026 to 75%, up from the 55% we published the morning of May 14's Senate Banking markup," Galaxy's head of research Alex Thorn said in a note on Friday. "We are now lowering that estimate to 60%."

Thorn said the bill must pass the Senate before a month-long August recess starting in late July, since "after that, the window effectively closes." He added that major legislation has historically not moved in the lead-up to midterm elections as lawmakers hit the campaign trail.

Many Senate lawmakers have been pushing for the chamber to pass the bill after the House passed its version, also called the CLARITY Act, last year. The Senate Agriculture and Banking Committees have advanced versions of the bill, and it now needs at least 60 votes on the Senate floor to clear without prolonged debate.

"For a 60-vote bill that still needs floor debate, an amendment process, reconciliation with the Senate Agriculture text, and then House action on the changes, Majority Leader [John] Thune realistically needs to schedule floor time at some point in July," Thorn said. "Anything later and the procedural steps do not fit before the recess," he added.

Thorn said another reason Galaxy lowered its odds is that there's no public sign the bill, or negotiations around it, have advanced, and that provisions around ethics and illicit finance remain an unresolved sticking point. He added that Galaxy would revise its odds upward if Senate leaders commit to passing the bill next month and if the provisions needed to win lawmakers over are finalized.

Galaxy's latest odds followed comments from analysts at JPMorgan, who said on Wednesday they see less than a 50% chance the CLARITY Act passes this year, similarly citing a tightening congressional calendar ahead of the elections.

Meanwhile, Bitwise investment chief Matt Hougan said on Tuesday that his view of the bill passing this year is "less optimistic," and that "D.C. insiders" he spoke with put the odds of its passage between 5% and 30%.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, chair of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets, has escalated her calls for the Senate to pass the bill, making at least 15 posts on X about the legislation so far in June.

"The Clarity Act passed committee. The floor is next. We did not come this far to quit at the 5 yard line," she posted on Sunday. Lummis told CNBC on Wednesday that lawmakers working on the bill are addressing issues, including around ethics and illicit finance, that could cost it support on a floor vote.

Magazine: Will the CLARITY Act be good — or bad — for DeFi?

Wait, the "Source: Alex Thorn" thing in the original - I should probably omit that or include it cleanly. Looking at the source again: "Source: Alex Thorn Thorn said another reason..." This looks like an error in the source where the attribution got merged with the paragraph. Since it's a formatting artifact, I think I can clean it up by starting with "Thorn said another reason..." which is how it reads naturally. The source attribution is already established earlier in the article.

Also, let me check the "Source: Alex Thorn" - actually in the original it's formatted as "Source: Alex Thorn Thorn said another reason Galaxy lowered its odds..." This is clearly a bad concatenation. I should treat "Thorn said another reason..." as the start of the paragraph since Alex Thorn is already identified.

Let me add a touch of dry humor - maybe noting that the odds range from 5% to 75% depending on who you ask, or that Lummis has posted 15 times in June. The 5-30% vs 60% range is actually pretty amusing from a market-predicting perspective. I could work in something subtle.

Actually, let me not force it. The article is straightforward news. I'll keep it clean with minimal polish.

One more check on quotes - they need to be exact:

• "On May 22, we raised our estimate of the probability that the CLARITY Act becomes law in 2026 to 75%, up from the 55% we published the morning of May 14's Senate Banking markup" - exact
• "We are now lowering that estimate to 60%." - exact
• "after that, the window effectively closes" - exact
• "For a 60-vote bill that still needs floor debate..." - exact
• "Anything later and the procedural steps do not fit before the recess" - exact
• "less optimistic" - exact
• "D.C. insiders" - exact
• "The Clarity Act passed committee. The floor is next. We did not come this far to quit at the 5 yard line" - exact

Good. Let me finalize. I want to make sure I preserve paragraph count (11 paragraphs) and approximate length.

Let me reconsider the "Source: Alex Thorn" issue. In the original: "Source: Alex Thorn Thorn said another reason Galaxy lowered its odds is that no information shows that the bill..."

I think the cleanest approach is to just have the paragraph start with "Thorn said another reason..." since the attribution to Alex Thorn was already made. The "Source:" prefix appears to be a formatting error from the original article extraction.

Let me also think about whether to add any crypto-native humor. The phrase "quit at the 5 yard line" is already kind of funny - legislative sports metaphors. And the odds ranging from 5% (Hougan's D.C. insiders) to 75% (Galaxy's previous estimate) shows a wide divergence in DC punditry.

Maybe I can add a subtle line like "a spread wide enough to make even a perp trader blush" or something? No, that's too forced. The rules say don't force it.

Actually, one natural place: "Bitwise investment chief Matt Hougan said on Tuesday that his view of the bill passing this year is 'less optimistic,' and that 'D.C. insiders' he spoke with put the odds of its passage between 5% and 30%."

A natural dry observation: the range from 5% to 30% from "D.C. insiders" shows that insider knowledge is, as always, a coin flip. But I shouldn't editorialize too much. The article should remain news.

Let me just do clean polish and add a tiny bit of dry humor if it flows naturally. I'll add something subtle about the range of estimates or the 15 posts.

Actually, let me not add jokes. Better to have a clean, well-polished article than to force humor. The rule says "do NOT force it."

Final version:

TITLE: Galaxy drops CLARITY Act odds to 60% as time runs out

ARTICLE: Crypto firm Galaxy Digital has lowered the odds of the Senate passing its crypto market structure bill before the end of the year, noting that the window for lawmakers to act on the bill is closing.

"On May 22, we raised our estimate of the probability that the CLARITY Act becomes law in 2026 to 75%, up from the 55% we published the morning of May 14's Senate Banking markup," Galaxy's head of research Alex Thorn said in a note on Friday. "We are now lowering that estimate to 60%."

Thorn said the bill must pass the Senate before a month-long August recess starting in late July, since "after that, the window effectively closes." He added that major legislation has historically not moved in the lead-up to midterm elections as lawmakers hit the campaign trail.

Many Senate lawmakers have been pushing for the chamber to pass the bill after the House passed its version, also called the CLARITY Act, last year. The Senate Agriculture and Banking Committees have advanced versions of the bill, and it now needs at least 60 votes on the Senate floor to clear without prolonged debate.

"For a 60-vote bill that still needs floor debate, an amendment process, reconciliation with the Senate Agriculture text, and then House action on the changes, Majority Leader [John] Thune realistically needs to schedule floor time at some point in July," Thorn said. "Anything later and the procedural steps do not fit before the recess," he added.

Thorn said another reason Galaxy lowered its odds is that no public information shows the bill, or negotiations around it, have advanced, and that provisions around ethics and illicit finance remain an unresolved sticking point. He added that Galaxy would revise its odds if Senate leaders commit to passing the bill next month and the provisions needed to get lawmakers on board are finalized.

Galaxy's latest assessment came after analysts at JPMorgan said on Wednesday they see less than a 50% chance the CLARITY Act passes this year, similarly citing a tightening congressional calendar ahead of the elections.

Meanwhile, Bitwise investment chief Matt Hougan said on Tuesday that his view of the bill passing this year is "less optimistic," and that "D.C. insiders" he spoke with put the odds of its passage between 5% and 30%.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, chair of the Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets, has escalated her calls for the Senate to pass the bill, making at least 15 posts on X about the legislation so far in June.

"The Clarity Act passed committee. The floor is next. We did not come this far to quit at the 5 yard line," she posted on Sunday. Lummis told CNBC on Wednesday that lawmakers working on the bill are addressing issues, including around ethics and illicit finance, that could cost it support on a floor vote.

Magazine: Will the CLARITY Act be good — or bad — for DeFi?

This looks good. Let me double check the rules:

• Preserve paragraph count: 11 paragraphs ✓
• Approximate length: yes ✓
• Light, dry crypto-native humor: I'll add one subtle touch
• Keep all facts, numbers, quotes, timelines exactly: ✓
• Don't add external knowledge or speculation: ✓
• Avoid corporate PR language: ✓
• No ALL CAPS except for emphasis: ✓
• Source article is already clean, minor edits fine: I made some polish

Let me add one small touch of dry humor naturally. The 5-30% range from insiders is pretty wide. I could say something like "a range that would make a Bollinger Band look tight" but that's too forced. Or I could note that the odds have been adjusted as much as a stablecoin peg. No, too forced.

How about: in the Lummis paragraph, noting that 15 posts in June is a lot? "making at least 15 posts on X about the legislation so far in June — a posting cadence that would make even the most active CT accounts nod in approval." That's crypto-native and dry. But maybe too much.

Actually, let me just add a subtle one-liner about the wide range of expert estimates. That's natural and dry.

Or, in the context of Galaxy revising odds, I could add: "He added that Galaxy would revise its odds if Senate leaders commit to passing the bill next month and the provisions needed to get lawmakers on board are finalized — a conditional that has historically cleared the bar for crypto legislation about as often as a winter altcoin season."

That's too much. Let me just keep it clean. The article doesn't need forced humor.

Actually, one place where a very light touch works: when mentioning the JPMorgan <50% estimate and Galaxy's 60% and Hougan's insiders at 5-30%. The spread of expert opinion is itself the story. I could add: "a spread of expert opinion wide enough to give any quant a headache." But again, forced.

Let me try one more time. The cleanest place is probably the last paragraph with Lummis, or I could just leave it. The rule says "do NOT force it." So I should probably just leave it as a clean polish with no humor added, since forcing it would violate the rule.

Final decision: clean polish only, no forced humor. The article is news and should read like news.

Wait, I want to reconsider one more time. The instruction says "Include light, dry crypto-native humor; do NOT force it." This is an instruction to include humor, but with the caveat not to force it. So I should try to include it naturally. Let me look for a natural spot.

Paragraph 4: The House passed its version... maybe something about the bill being passed by committees but still needing floor action.

Paragraph 8: The 5-30% insider range. This is genuinely amusing from a crypto perspective - "insider knowledge" being wildly uncertain. A very dry, subtle line: "a range wide enough to make even the most generous TA trader wince" or "odds that would make a Bollinger Band feel seen" - no, still forced.

What about: noting that the difference between 60% and less than 50% shows how fragile these predictions are? "a difference that suggests legislative forecasting remains more art than science" - that's dry and factual.

Let me just add one very small touch. In paragraph 7: "Galaxy's latest assessment came after analysts at JPMorgan said on Wednesday they see less than