Does Catherine Cortez Masto Support Crypto?

It might seem confusing that a U.S. Senator explaining her opposition to the highly anticipated CLARITY Act would receive a perfect 100 stance score for this statement, but the nuance here is essential. The CLARITY Act is a foundational piece of pro-crypto legislation. It aims to establish exclusive Commodity Futures Trading Commission jurisdiction over spot market transactions, protect individual self-custody rights, and finally differentiate digital commodities from securities. It is exactly the kind of legislation the industry needs to escape arbitrary regulatory enforcement. So why the perfect score for a statement opposing its current form? Because of how the Senator frames her stance and her ultimate goals. She explicitly calls for "clear rules of the road"—the strongest pro-crypto signal in our framework—and emphasizes the need to provide certainty for millions of American crypto users. Most importantly, she draws a vital distinction: we must take on bad actors, "the criminals not the everyday coders." In an era where open-source software developers have faced increasing legal threats simply for writing and publishing code, having a sitting Senator explicitly defend builders is a massive conceptual win for the industry. This aligns perfectly with her strong track record, reflected in her overall score of 90. She previously voted for the GENIUS Act to provide regulatory clarity for stablecoins and voted to repeal the intrusive IRS DeFi reporting rule back in March 2025. While her vote against the current version of the CLARITY Act is disappointing for those eager to see it pass, her insistence on equipping law enforcement to trace illicit funds—without sacrificing the rights of ordinary users and developers—shows she is engaging with the technology thoughtfully. We want to see the CLARITY Act passed, but having lawmakers who understand the fundamental difference between malicious actors and software developers is exactly how we get sensible, lasting crypto policy in the United States.

Senator Cortez Masto’s recent statement perfectly illustrates the complex tension in Washington between desiring market clarity and demanding strict enforcement control. This statement earns a maximum pro-crypto score because her rhetoric is remarkably supportive of the industry's foundation. She explicitly calls for "clear rules of the road," properly distinguishes between malicious actors and "everyday coders," and highlights the need to give millions of American users regulatory certainty. Under our framework, demanding enabling clarity that protects builders and removes ambiguity is one of the strongest pro-crypto signals a lawmaker can send. However, there is critical context needed here. This statement was issued to explain her decision to vote against the CLARITY Act (Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025). This bill is a profoundly important piece of pro-crypto legislation that establishes a regulatory framework for digital commodities, grants the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over spot markets (finally differentiating them from securities), and critically, protects the rights of individuals to self-custody their own digital assets. While the Senator's words about protecting everyday coders are excellent, she ultimately opposed this landmark market structure bill because it did not include her preferred mechanisms for tracing illicit finance and prosecuting criminals. We completely agree that stopping fraud and bad actors is a necessary part of a mature market. Yet, sacrificing a bill that provides the exact certainty she claims to want—simply because it lacks heavier state financial surveillance tools—is deeply frustrating. True regulatory clarity must prioritize the freedom to build, use stablecoins, and transact legally without fear of arbitrary enforcement. We hope the Senator eventually aligns her voting record with her strong pro-coder rhetoric, rather than letting the pursuit of perfect enforcement tools kill much-needed progress.

Senator Catherine Cortez Masto recently published a statement explaining her position on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025. The rhetoric in her message earned a perfect stance score, but there is critical nuance here between what is being said and what is actually happening on the Senate floor. On paper, her statement is incredibly encouraging. She explicitly calls for "clear rules of the road" and draws a vital distinction between bad actors and "everyday coders." For a long time, lawmakers have tried to criminalize the sheer act of writing open-source software, so seeing a Senator publicly defend developers is a massive shift in the right direction. She also acknowledges the need to provide certainty for millions of American users. This framing is exactly what enabling regulatory clarity looks like, which is why the statement itself scores so highly. However, the context of these words is a justification for voting against the CLARITY Act. This legislation is a landmark proposal that would grant the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over digital commodity spot markets—moving the industry away from hostile, regulation-by-enforcement tactics that attempt to treat every token as a security. Most importantly, the bill explicitly protects the fundamental right to individual self-custody. The Senator opposed the bill because she believes it undermines law enforcement's ability to trace funds. While stopping actual fraud is a necessary component of a mature market, rejecting a bill that protects self-custody over surveillance concerns is deeply disappointing. The high score for this specific statement reflects how far the political conversation has shifted in our favor. Politicians now recognize they must publicly defend everyday coders and support clear rules. But ultimately, positive rhetoric needs to translate into votes for legislation that actually protects our right to build, transact, and hold our own keys.

Senator Cortez Masto recently issued a statement explaining her position on the CLARITY Act. Interestingly, the text of this statement receives a top-tier pro-crypto stance score of 100. Let’s break down why this rhetoric scores so highly, and where the critical nuance lies regarding her actual voting record. Under our evaluation framework, calling for a "clear regulatory framework" or "rules of the road" is a strong pro-crypto signal. The industry desperately needs to be freed from arbitrary regulation-by-enforcement. The Senator hits all the right rhetorical notes here: she explicitly advocates for giving millions of U.S. users regulatory certainty and makes a crucial distinction between targeting bad actors and protecting "everyday coders." Acknowledging that developers building decentralized tech are not criminals is exactly the kind of nuanced language we want to see from lawmakers. However, as a measured observer of the space, I have to contrast her excellent rhetoric with her actual legislative action. Yesterday, she ultimately voted against the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (the CLARITY Act). This landmark bill was designed to differentiate digital commodities from securities, grant the CFTC exclusive jurisdiction over spot markets, and permanently protect an individual's fundamental right to self-custody their digital assets. The Senator justified her opposition by claiming the current version of the bill undermines law enforcement's ability to trace illicit finance. While stopping fraud and prosecuting criminals are necessary parts of a mature market, we have to be extremely careful. Often, what lawmakers call "commonsense fixes" for law enforcement mutate into broad surveillance mandates or reporting requirements that compromise user privacy and effectively outlaw self-custodial wallets. It is incredibly encouraging to see Senator Cortez Masto adopt such strong pro-crypto messaging. Her public acknowledgment that the industry needs certainty and that developers must be protected shows that the crypto community's educational advocacy is working. But true regulatory clarity means passing bills that establish fair market structures without saddling the technology with impossible surveillance burdens. We hope to see her pro-innovation rhetoric eventually translate into "yea" votes for bills that protect both everyday users and the foundational rights of the ecosystem.