the below thread is vital feedback from @milesjennings and @a16zcrypto on the Senate's risky departure from regulatory framework established in the House's bipartisan CLARITY bill. In particular, there are two extremely hard-fought 'wins' in CLARITY without which I would not have endorsed it & which are essential if token markets are to have a healthy future, but which are lacking in the Senate approach: (1) CLARITY makes very clear that tokens can be 'securities-like' (have intrinsic economic value flows etc.) as long as the economic flows derive from their use within a decentralized/autonomous system--in contrast, the Senate framework resorts to an antiquated and gray-area test around whether tokens are associated with 'rights' to determine the securities dividing line...this is completely different from current securities law and would place any value accrual mechanism that appears rights-like into serious jeopardy, creating more and more incentive and 'moral hazard' for 'valueless memecoins' as a pure regulatory arbitrage . . .CLARITY also makes this point clear not just for 'investment contract' analysis but for every other type of 'security' that a token could be regulated as ('notes' etc.), the Senate bill only deals with investment contracts. . . (2) the entire point of a *market structure* bill should be to do just that--improve *structure*, improve *capital formation* for the projects that are worthy of capitalizing... but if project insiders and VCs can dump with complete impunity without delivering a single one of their promises, market structure will get *worse*. . .this will be particularly bad if combined with point #1..taken together, we will have a market with strong incentives toward creating valueless tokens that are pumped-and-dumped fast, and high-quality tokens and projects will be *punished* with greater regulatory ambiguity & risk