Woofun AI reports that a 616-page working draft of the CLARITY Act, published by Punchbowl News, consolidates the Senate Banking and Agriculture committee workstreams into a single legislative package. This document provides the first concrete shape to the crypto ethics compromise following days of negotiations conducted largely through statements and private briefings. The defining characteristic of this draft is its expiration date: the ethics section would cease to have legal effect at noon on January 20, 2029.

Rather than establishing a permanent conflict-of-interest rule, the proposal introduces a temporary restriction tied to the end of the current presidential term. This structural choice marks a significant departure from earlier public framings, which lacked a fixed sunset clause. The draft retains software developer protections closely watched by the DeFi sector and assigns enforcement of the ethics section to the Department of Justice. While this makes the proposal easier to examine, it does not guarantee bipartisan support.

The text clarifies the position being taken into negotiations but does not indicate that remaining votes have been secured. The circulating language targets direct involvement in issuing or sponsoring digital assets, rather than imposing a blanket prohibition on buying, holding, or investing in crypto. An official could therefore be barred from launching or sponsoring a token without necessarily being required to sell every digital asset already held. The final effect would depend on definitions, the treatment of existing business interests, and implementing rules written after enactment.

The political conflict over enforcement remains the most immediate hurdle. The Justice Department would remain the central authority responsible for policing the provision. Senator Angela Alsobrooks has already labeled that DOJ-only approach an 'unserious offer' and stated she would not support the bill if it remained the sole enforcement route. The new text does not settle the argument; it confirms that the disputed structure survived into the working draft.

A permanent rule would establish one standard for future presidents, lawmakers, and administrations. This version would disappear automatically in January 2029 unless Congress extended or replaced it. The timing carries an additional complication. The legislation would give regulators up to a year to implement the ethics restrictions. If passage slips, the period in which the completed framework is actually in force could be much shorter than the sunset date suggests.

Congress would effectively ask agencies to build an enforcement system for a provision with a predetermined and relatively near end date. Future officials would then fall outside that restriction unless lawmakers acted again. For Democrats already concerned about DOJ-only enforcement, the sunset adds a second question: why should a conflict-of-interest rule expire with one administration rather than apply equally to the next? The temporary design may help negotiations in the short term, but it weakens the claim that the bill creates a lasting ethics standard.

Woofun AI data shows that the draft retains the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, one of the sections watched most closely by wallet developers and DeFi infrastructure providers. Section 604 focuses on control rather than the mere act of writing code. A non-controlling developer or provider would not be treated as a money transmitter solely for publishing or maintaining distributed ledger software, supplying self-custody tools, or supporting network infrastructure.

A developer who builds a wallet interface but cannot move a user’s assets would therefore sit in a different category from a company that takes custody and executes transfers for customers. Building the system would not automatically make the developer the financial intermediary using it. The protection is not absolute. The official Senate Banking Committee summary preserves existing federal criminal liability for anyone who knowingly transfers criminal proceeds or funds intended to support unlawful activity.

The legal text also allows money-transmitter treatment when conduct falls outside the protected non-controlling activities. In other words, Section 604 is a targeted shield for code and infrastructure, not a blanket exemption from financial crime laws. Crypto industry representatives had been shown details while Democratic lawmakers had not yet received the text. That sequence does not invalidate the proposal, but it explains why publication should not be confused with consensus.

The Senate version still needs Democratic support to advance. The ethics section was supposed to remove one of the largest barriers, yet the draft keeps an enforcement model already rejected by a Democrat who helped move the bill through committee. The fixed sunset creates another point for bargaining. Negotiators could demand stronger enforcement, a permanent restriction, or both. Any compromise would then have to survive the broader debates over DeFi, intermediary registration, investor protection, and the division of authority between the SEC and CFTC.

There is also one more step beyond the Senate. If the chamber approves language that differs from the House-passed CLARITY Act, the House would have to accept the changes or both chambers would need to negotiate identical text. The 616-page draft is meaningful progress because it replaces broad promises with language that can be examined and amended. It brings the committee tracks together and keeps non-custodial developer protection inside the emerging framework.

It also exposes the weakness of the ethics compromise. The rule is temporary, implementation could consume a meaningful part of its lifespan, and the enforcement structure has already cost the proposal support. The remaining fight is no longer about whether an ethics section will exist. It is about whether lawmakers can turn it into a provision that both parties are willing to defend. Until that happens, the circulating text is the start of the final drafting battle, not the final CLARITY Act.