The CLARITY Act Draft: What Stakers Need to Know

Introduction

The CLARITY Act Draft is Congress’s attempt to resolve long-standing uncertainty in U.S. crypto regulation. Until now, regulatory authority has been split between the SEC and the CFTC, with no clear statutory guidance on how digital assets should be classified or how core network participants should be treated.

The Act Draft establishes clear definitions, assigns jurisdiction based on network structure, and introduces explicit protections for blockchain infrastructure participants, including validators and staking providers.

Core Regulatory Shift

The Act Draft draws a clear distinction between early-stage projects and mature blockchain networks.

Tokens associated with decentralized and operationally mature networks are classified as digital commodities and fall under CFTC oversight. Tokens tied to projects that remain centrally controlled or under active development are classified as investment contract assets and remain under SEC jurisdiction.

Stablecoins used primarily for payments are given a separate legal category.

This framework replaces enforcement-driven interpretation with defined asset classes, reducing the risk that core network activities like staking are retroactively reclassified.

Network Maturity Framework

The Act Draft introduces a formal process for networks to demonstrate decentralization and transition from SEC oversight to CFTC jurisdiction. This provides a lawful path from startup status to public infrastructure.

For proof-of-stake networks, this transition is especially important. It reduces long-term regulatory uncertainty for validators and stakers by clarifying when a network’s native token is no longer treated as a security.

Market Structure and Preemption

The Act Draft creates new registration categories for digital asset businesses, including exchanges, brokers, and dealers specific to digital commodities.

Federal law preempts state-level crypto regulation, creating a single national standard. This simplifies compliance for operators and service providers and reduces the patchwork of state-by-state interpretations that have historically created risk for staking operations.

Impact on Validators and Node Operators

The Act Draft provides explicit protections for those who operate blockchain infrastructure and draws a clear legal boundary between technical participation in a network and financial intermediation.

DeFi and Infrastructure Safe Harbor

Validators and node operators participating in decentralized protocols are generally exempt from broker or dealer registration requirements, provided they do not exercise discretionary control over user funds.

Crucially, the Act Draft recognizes that validation, block production, and consensus participation are infrastructure activities. Validators are treated as network operators rather than financial intermediaries.

Explicit Exclusion from Trading Activity

Validation activity is explicitly excluded under the Act Draft from being classified as trading in commodity interests. Transacting in digital commodities for the purpose of maintaining, supporting, or validating a blockchain network does not make validators professional traders or market participants under the Commodity Exchange Act.

This dual exclusion, from both securities and commodities trading regimes, prevents regulators from recharacterizing validation under alternative legal theories.

Money Transmission Clarification

The Act Draft clarifies that validating transactions, producing blocks, or providing the software and hardware necessary to operate a blockchain does not constitute money transmission.

Importantly, the Act Draft introduces the concept of a non-controlling blockchain service provider. Infrastructure providers are not treated as money transmitters so long as they do not have the unilateral legal right or technical ability to initiate or redirect transactions involving user assets without third-party consent.

Taken together, these provisions formally recognize validators as infrastructure operators rather than financial service providers.

Recognized Staking Models

The Act Draft does not treat staking as a single activity. Instead, it formally distinguishes between different staking models, each with different regulatory implications:

• Self-Staking: Where the asset owner and validator operator are the same entity.

• Self-Custodial Staking with a Third Party: Where delegation occurs, but the validator does not take custody or control of assets.

• Custodial and Ancillary Staking Services: Where intermediaries facilitate staking while holding customer assets, provided services remain administrative or ministerial in nature.

This distinction is particularly important for non-custodial staking providers and delegated proof-of-stake networks, as it provides statutory clarity that was previously absent.

Impact on Stakers

For end users who stake assets, the Act Draft provides both regulatory clarity and meaningful consumer protections.

Staking Rewards Classification

The Act Draft affirms that rewards earned through staking, defined as end user distributions, are not securities offerings. These rewards are treated as compensation for network participation, such as validating or securing the network, rather than as investment returns.

This distinction is foundational for proof-of-stake networks, where staking is a core security and consensus mechanism rather than a yield product.

Intermediary Consent Requirements

If staking is facilitated through an exchange or intermediary, that entity may only stake user assets with explicit written authorization.

Importantly, under the Act Draft, an exchange may not require this permission as a condition of offering services. Assets may not be repurposed, rehypothecated, or deployed for staking without clear, opt-in consent.

This directly addresses past practices where users were often unaware of how their assets were being used.

Asset Segregation and Custody

Registered brokers are required under the Act Draft to segregate customer assets, including staked assets, from company funds. In the event of insolvency, customer assets are protected from creditor claims.

At the same time, the Act Draft recognizes the technical realities of proof-of-stake systems. Regulators are permitted to waive or modify certain segregation requirements to enable staking operations that require assets to be actively used for network security.

Custodial Staking and Rulemaking

While non-custodial staking and validator operations receive immediate statutory clarity under the Act Draft, custodial staking services will be subject to further SEC rulemaking.

The Act Draft directs the SEC to define, within 270 days, which custodial and ancillary staking services qualify as administrative or ministerial. This implementation phase will shape how large custodial platforms and exchanges offer staking going forward.

Institutional Participation

The Act Draft materially improves regulatory clarity around custody, accounting, and asset use in proof-of-stake networks—areas that have historically limited institutional participation in staking. By resolving these uncertainties, the Act Draft increases confidence for regulated institutions to engage with staking in a compliant and operationally sound manner.

As regulatory confidence improves, institutions are better positioned to engage with professional infrastructure operators that align with internal governance, security, and compliance standards. Over time, this clarity is expected to support broader institutional participation in staking through institutional-grade providers, rather than informal or ad hoc arrangements.

Broader Policy Context

Beyond staking-specific provisions, the Act Draft also reflects a broader policy stance on digital assets in the United States. Notably, it explicitly prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing or facilitating a central bank digital currency (CBDC), while preserving the legality of open, permissionless, and private dollar-denominated digital assets.

The Act Draft also affirms the right to self-custody, ensuring individuals and institutions may hold digital assets directly without reliance on intermediaries, and provides protections for non-controlling software developers and infrastructure providers.

Together, these provisions reinforce a regulatory approach that favors decentralized, market-driven blockchain infrastructure over state-controlled digital money.

Status and Timeline

The Act Draft has passed the House and is under Senate review. The vote was recently moved to the last week of January 2026 to resolve disagreements over DeFi and stablecoin rewards.

If enacted, federal agencies will have approximately one year to finalize implementing rules.

Conclusion

The CLARITY Act Draft replaces regulatory ambiguity with defined categories, responsibilities, and boundaries. For staking ecosystems, it provides long-awaited clarity on validator operations, staking models, reward classification, and asset protection.

Most importantly, the Act Draft formally recognizes staking and validation as core network infrastructure functions rather than unresolved legal risk. For stakers and validators alike, it signals a shift toward treating proof-of-stake networks as regulated financial infrastructure, without undermining their decentralized foundations.

About Luganodes

Luganodes is a world-class, Swiss-operated, non-custodial blockchain infrastructure provider that has rapidly gained recognition in the industry for offering institutional-grade services. It was born out of the Lugano Plan B Program, an initiative driven by Tether and the City of Lugano. Luganodes maintains an exceptional 99.9% uptime with round-the-clock monitoring by SRE experts. With support for 45+ PoS networks, it ranks among the top validators on Polygon, Polkadot, Sui, and Tron. Luganodes prioritizes security and compliance, holding the distinction of being one of the first staking providers to adhere to all SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, and ISO 27001 standards as well as offering Chainproof insurance to institutional clients.

The information herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, business, tax, professional, financial, or investment advice. No warranties are made regarding its accuracy, correctness, completeness, or reliability. Luganodes and its affiliates disclaim all liability for any losses or damages arising from reliance on this information. Luganodes is not obligated to update or amend any content. Use of this at your own risk. For any advice, please consult a qualified professional.