The delay in the review of the CLARITY bill is not a rejection, but rather a "delayed game" in the ongoing institutional debate.

At first glance, the postponement of the CLARITY bill appears to be a negative signal for regulatory expectations. However, it is more like a "delayed handling" of a strategic game. In the current political cycle and amidst clear regulatory disagreements, the delay itself does not indicate a reversal of stance but suggests that parties have yet to reach a consensus on the boundaries of rights and responsibilities.

From a legislative perspective, CLARITY addresses core issues: which crypto assets qualify as securities, who should regulate them, and how to delineate the authority between CFTC and SEC. These questions are inherently not suitable for quick decisions. The delay in review instead indicates that the bill still holds practical discussion value rather than being outright shelved.

For the market, this kind of uncertainty is not a new variable but a continuation of "old problems." The real risk is not the delay itself but the prolonged unresolved regulatory ambiguity. Short-term sentiment may fluctuate, but the structural direction has not been negated.