A key difference between CLARITY and Senate market structure draft: A centralized token with no material function has a better chance of qualifying for non-security treatment under the ancillary asset framework than a decentralized network like Ethereum, Cosmos, etc.

The Senate framework rewards issuer inactivity rather than decentralization, and risks penalizing the very networks that are most aligned with open, transparent, and secure blockchain principles.

Under the Senate draft, if a foundation is deemed to engage in material ongoing efforts that primarily determine the token’s value (a vague and subjective standard) the token may be disqualified from ancillary asset treatment and therefore still be considered a security.

By contrast, under the CLARITY Act, a token can still be treated as a digital commodity even if a foundation remains active, as long as no party retains unilateral control. In that case, the foundation would simply need to provide some basic disclosures; many of which certain foundations already provide.