Tokenized stocks silenced? Several companies strive to clarify the true intent of the CLARITY Act

Question

【BlockBeats】The controversy over the Crypto Market Structure Act (CLARITY) continues to ferment. Recently, a leading exchange announced it would withdraw support for the bill, claiming it constitutes an “effective ban on tokenized stocks.” However, responses from multiple tokenization companies in the industry vary significantly.

Carlos Domingo, CEO of Securitize, straightforwardly stated: “The current draft does not at all stifle tokenized stocks.” His logic is clear—the core purpose of this bill is to clarify that tokenized stocks still fall under the category of securities and must adhere to existing regulatory frameworks. In his view, this is precisely the necessary foundation for blockchain technology to integrate into traditional financial markets.

Gabe Otte, CEO of Dinari, shares the same perspective. He directly rebutted the statement from a leading exchange: “We do not believe the CLARITY draft is a ban on tokenized stocks at all.”

Superstate, a company founded by Compound’s creator Robert Leshner, also joined the discussion. Its Chief Legal Counsel, Alexander Zozos, pointed out that the true value of this bill lies in clarifying the ambiguous areas of crypto assets with unclear regulatory jurisdiction. In contrast, tokenized stocks and bonds have long been within the explicit jurisdiction of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—that is not the issue.

NFTFreezer · Accepted Answer

Here we go again, exchanges talk about bans, project teams say it's nothing. I can guess this routine with my eyes closed...

Is it true? CLARITY just wants to bring tokenized stocks under regulatory oversight, why insist on interpreting it as a ban?

This bill doesn't seem that absolute; it mainly depends on how it's enforced.

Why is a certain exchange so dramatic, saying they'll withdraw just like that?

It sounds like regulators just want to clarify identities, and the project teams actually welcome that.

Are we still arguing about this? The securities nature should have been clarified long ago.

Come on, come on, can someone clearly explain whether it's a ban or not?

Anyway, the more I look, the more confused I get... Those who benefit will support, those who suffer will oppose. Is it really that hard to understand?

So in the end, it all depends on how the final version is written.

ContractFreelancer · Answer

Huh? Major exchanges first withdraw support and then ban it; this move is really ruthless... It feels like just stirring up hype.

---

To put it simply, it's still about the regulatory framework. Tokenized stocks are originally securities. Following the rules shouldn't be considered a ban. This logic really doesn't hold up.

---

Securitize and Dinari both say there's no ban, but these leading exchanges are here creating panic... Who's telling the truth and who's lying, it's hard to see clearly right now.

---

If CLARITY really bans tokenized stocks, won't these CEOs lose their temper? Now they're all denying it, which says something.

---

Another play in the capital game, just waiting to see who wins in the end.

---

It seems like the exchanges just want to make a big splash to attract attention, but ended up shooting themselves in the foot, haha.

---

Clarifying that it falls under securities actually might be good for long-term development, at least it standardizes things and is much better than the gray areas.

VitaliksTwin · Answer

The exchange is blaming others again, it's really hilarious... Securitize and Dinari made it clear that CLARITY is just about clarifying the rules, how did it become a ban?

LeverageAddict · Answer

Another plot twist? Exchanges call for bans, project teams refuse to admit... Who is really deceiving me?

---

Are so many people really backing CLARITY? It feels like someone is trying to shift the blame.

---

Is it suppression or regulation? It all depends on who can tell a better story.

---

Wait, can the securities framework really be implemented... I'm a bit confused.

---

Securitize's words sound comfortable, but I still have some doubts.

---

One says there's a ban, another says there isn't. I just want to know what the real situation is.

---

Tokenized stocks will eventually be regulated. Isn't it more stable now that there are clear laws?

---

It's that narrative of "integrating into traditional finance" again. Will it really work this time?

---

Exchanges turning around and running away—it's a perfect character setting. Didn't we agree to fight together?

RugpullSurvivor · Answer

Here we go again with this set? Exchanges are scared, project teams are holding on tight, this script is the same every time

---

Basically, it’s about compliance. Those who are truly doing the work have nothing to fear

---

I just want to ask, whether the ban is still in place or not, why does everyone have different opinions?

---

Securitize’s stance this time is okay, at least they’re more honest than some exchanges that just shift blame

---

Tokenized stocks being popular or not doesn’t matter, risk management is the real key

---

Wait, is the withdrawal of support by the major exchanges really out of fear or is there another reason? That’s the real question

---

Honestly, this bill should have been introduced long ago. Clearing up the waters is good for the entire ecosystem

---

Another regulatory tug-of-war, let’s see who ultimately holds the power of discourse

GhostWalletSleuth · Answer

Haha, this move by a certain exchange is really funny. If they don't want to follow the rules, they just say others banned them?

That's nonsense. Securitize and Dinari are more reliable. Clear regulatory frameworks are actually beneficial for long-term development.

All these big players are on the same channel, but the one withdrawing support seems more like shifting blame.

OptionWhisperer · Answer

Ha, now it's getting lively. Exchanges call for bans, project teams say it's fine, who the heck should we believe...

---

It's the same old routine, scaring the market and then blaming regulatory authorities, really exhausting.

---

Securitize is being quite realistic; compliance is basically the premise for long-term operation, right?

---

This wave, I feel, is just about different stances—exchanges fear trouble, project teams are just trying to survive.

---

Wait, is CLARITY right or wrong? After reading, I'm still a bit confused...

---

I think that top exchange just wants to find an excuse to run away.

---

Tokenized stocks will eventually be regulated; instead of stubbornly resisting, it's better to adapt early.

MeltdownSurvivalist · Answer

Here we go again with the bickering... The "ban" that exchanges talk about has become a "clear regulatory framework" when it comes to project teams. Who would believe that?

Honestly, it's all about each side defending their own interests. How many times has this script been played out?

Anyway, we'll see the true impact once the legislation is actually implemented. No point arguing fiercely now.

It's one thing for these two CEOs to try to whitewash the situation, but the real concern is how many hidden pitfalls are waiting to be uncovered.

Whether CLARITY is meant to safeguard or to strangle remains to be seen. I'll wait until I analyze the on-chain data before making any judgments.

Tokenized stocks silenced? Several companies strive to clarify the true intent of the CLARITY Act

Trending Topics

TariffTensionsHitCryptoMarket

CryptoMarketPullback

GateLaunchpadIMU

GoldandSilverHitNewHighs

WarshLeadsFedChairRace

Hot Gate Fun

茅台

茅台

朕

Zhen

MMT

MYANMAR TOKEN

QTM

Quantum

do love

do love

Pin