Financial Software Monitors Cash Flow and Risk

The software tracks cash positions, assesses financial risk and generates forecasts. It can also recommend financial actions, but a human must review and approve every decision before it is implemented.

Mastercard Launches Wallet Pay to Connect Digital Wallets With Global Payments Network

Mastercard has launched Wallet Pay, a service designed to connect digital wallets with its global payments network across contactless, QR code, online, and cross-border transactions.

Broader Payment Access for Digital Wallet Users

Wallet Pay is intended to allow users of local digital wallets to access more payment options without leaving the services they already use. The initiative connects participating wallets to Mastercard’s acceptance network, which spans merchants and payment channels in markets worldwide.

Through the service, digital wallet users may be able to make payments using contactless terminals, QR codes, and online checkout systems. The offering also targets cross-border transactions, potentially expanding the usefulness of locally focused wallets when users travel or transact internationally.

Serving a Large Digital Wallet Market

Mastercard said the expansion enters a market with more than 4.3 billion digital wallet users globally. Digital wallets have become a major part of the payments ecosystem, supporting a range of functions including purchases, transfers, and access to financial services.

By linking local wallets to a global payment network, Wallet Pay addresses the challenge of interoperability between regional payment platforms and merchants operating across multiple markets.

Connecting Local Services to Global Commerce

The launch reflects the continued development of payment infrastructure around digital wallets. Rather than requiring users to adopt a new payment service, the model is designed to extend the reach of existing wallets while providing merchants with access to additional customers and payment methods.

Mastercard’s Wallet Pay will support payment experiences across in-store, online, and cross-border environments as the company expands its digital wallet connectivity.

Kalshi Wins, CFTC Loses in D.C. Circuit Showdown

A federal appeals court just handed Kalshi a decisive victory over the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, refusing to freeze the company’s election contracts while the agency appeals a lower-court ruling. The decision matters because it signals that judges are increasingly skeptical of the CFTC’s effort to wall off political-event contracts from the futures market.

The dispute started when Kalshi asked the CFTC to green-light binary contracts that pay out if a party wins control of Congress or the White House. The agency blocked the product, claiming election outcomes are “gaming” rather than legitimate commodities. Kalshi sued, arguing the CFTC had stretched the Commodity Exchange Act beyond its text. Last spring, District Judge Jia Cobb agreed, vacating the ban and ordering the contracts to trade. The CFTC immediately sought an emergency stay from the D.C. Circuit, warning that live election markets would cause “irreparable harm” to regulatory policy. A three-judge panel—Judges Pillard, Childs, and Pan—heard arguments on September 19 and, two weeks later, denied the stay in a brief per curiam order, letting Kalshi’s contracts go live November 5.

The ruling does not decide the full appeal on the merits, but it leaves the lower-court victory intact for now. Practically, that means Kalshi can list presidential-control contracts through Election Day and traders can bet on congressional majorities without waiting for the appeals court’s final word. The CFTC keeps its right to argue later that election contracts are outside its jurisdiction or otherwise illegal, but the agency must do so while markets are already running.

In plain terms, the court told the CFTC that its policy concerns alone do not justify an emergency shutdown. Unless the agency persuades the same panel to reverse Judge Cobb later this fall, election contracts are here to stay—at least until lawmakers step in.

For crypto markets, the decision is a quiet earthquake. If election contracts count as commodities, then so do prediction-market tokens and potentially other event contracts that platforms have long feared listing under U.S. rules. The CFTC’s loss also undercuts its broader claim that it alone can decide what is or is not a “game of chance,” narrowing the agency’s leverage over decentralized prediction markets and DeFi protocols that mirror Kalshi’s structure. Meanwhile, the SEC watches from the sidelines; a precedent that expands the CFTC’s sandbox could limit the SEC’s ability to tag the same tokens as unregistered securities. Exchanges now have live proof that political-event derivatives can trade legally, easing compliance fears and opening the door for similar contracts on inflation prints, Fed decisions, or regulatory approvals. Traders gain a new on-chain or off-chain instrument for hedging policy risk, but they also face the possibility that Congress could still outlaw election gambling next year.

The court has not rewritten the rulebook, but it has cracked open the door—and markets are already walking through it.

COURT SLAPS ENVY BLOCKCHAIN WITH MANDAMUS LOSS

A Texas appeals court has denied blockchain firm Envy Blockchain and its co-defendants emergency relief in a contract dispute, refusing to force a lower court to dismiss claims against them. The ruling signals that state judges will not let crypto companies duck litigation by claiming they operate outside traditional jurisdiction simply because their assets are digital.

The dispute began when a Texas landowner accused Envy Blockchain, NV Landco 1 LLC, and executive Stephen DeCani of breaching agreements tied to a planned crypto-mining facility. Rather than fight the case in district court, the defendants petitioned the Eighth Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus—an extraordinary order that would have forced the trial judge to drop the suit. They argued the claims lacked merit and that litigating in Texas imposed unfair burdens. The appeals court declined, finding the defendants failed to show the trial court had clearly abused its discretion or that they lacked any adequate remedy at law.

In plain terms, the court told the crypto executives to defend themselves where they were sued. Mandamus is a high bar; it is granted only when a lower court’s error is obvious and irreparable harm is imminent. Envy Blockchain could not clear that bar, so the underlying contract claims survive—for now.

The decision tightens the practical reality for crypto ventures that physical footprints still matter. Even if mining rigs hum on leased land and tokens trade on offshore exchanges, Texas courts can still reach the companies that sign local leases and hire local contractors. Plaintiffs gain leverage; defendants lose a procedural escape hatch.

For markets, the ruling is a quiet warning shot. It underscores that decentralization rhetoric does not erase real-world obligations. Exchanges and DeFi protocols courting U.S. counterparties should assume that state contract and property claims will proceed normally, even when tokens or wallets are involved. The risk premium on “decentralized” real-estate plays just ticked higher.

The lesson is simple: crypto firms cannot treat state courts like optional side quests.

Court Slams CFTC Overreach in Kraft Subpoena Fight

The Seventh Circuit just handed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission a rare public rebuke, refusing to force Kraft and Mondelez to hand over documents in an ongoing enforcement probe. The decision signals that even powerful regulators can hit hard limits when they try to stretch their authority too far, a message that will echo through crypto markets where the CFTC is aggressively testing its jurisdiction.

The dispute began when the CFTC launched an investigation into whether Kraft manipulated wheat futures years ago. Instead of seeking documents through normal channels, the agency demanded broad access to internal records from both Kraft and its parent Mondelez. When the companies pushed back, the CFTC asked the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel compliance. The lower court declined, and the agency appealed directly to the Seventh Circuit, seeking extraordinary relief to override the refusal.

Writing for the panel, the Seventh Circuit ruled that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear legal errors, not a shortcut when regulators dislike a district judge’s decision. The judges found the CFTC failed to show any “usurpation of judicial power” or irreparable harm that justified bypassing normal appeals. In plain terms, the court told the agency it cannot weaponize mandamus every time it meets resistance during an investigation.

The decision narrows the CFTC’s procedural playbook without touching the underlying enforcement case. Kraft and Mondelez keep their documents for now, while the agency must either narrow its demands or pursue them through ordinary litigation channels. Regulators lose a tactical edge; targets gain breathing room to challenge broad subpoenas.

For crypto, the ruling is a quiet warning shot. The CFTC is simultaneously investigating stablecoins, DeFi protocols, and derivatives platforms under its anti-manipulation authority. If courts are willing to push back against sweeping document demands in a mature commodity like wheat, they may be even more skeptical when the same agency reaches into decentralized codebases or offshore token issuers. Exchanges and protocols gain leverage to negotiate narrower scopes and force the CFTC to justify its reach rather than rubber-stamp it.

Watchdogs just learned that federal judges will not automatically hand them the keys; traders and builders now have a precedent that says “show your work” before regulators get the data.

Bitcoin Outlook Strengthens as September ETF Flows Turn Positive

Bitcoin’s market outlook has improved amid positive September flows into exchange-traded funds and signs of stronger risk appetite across altcoins. Following the release of new producer price index data, a strategist at 21Shares said the market could support a move toward $100,000 during a potentially volatile fourth quarter.

Inflation Data Tests Bitcoin’s Support

Bitcoin investors are assessing the latest inflation signals after wholesale prices increased, according to newly released producer price index data. The PPI measures the prices producers receive for goods and services and is closely watched for indications of future consumer-price trends and monetary policy.

Higher-than-expected wholesale prices can pressure risk assets by reinforcing expectations that interest rates may remain elevated. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have often responded to shifts in interest-rate expectations because tighter financial conditions can reduce demand for volatile assets.

ETF Flows Provide Market Support

Despite the inflation-related uncertainty, September flows into Bitcoin exchange-traded funds have been positive. Continued demand through regulated investment products can provide additional market support by increasing institutional exposure to the asset.

Market participants are also monitoring broader activity in the cryptocurrency sector. Greater risk appetite across altcoins may indicate that investors are becoming more willing to allocate capital beyond Bitcoin, although such moves can also increase market volatility.

Analyst Sees Potential for a Stronger Fourth Quarter

A 21Shares strategist said the combination of improving ETF flows and broader risk appetite could create conditions for Bitcoin to reach $100,000 during the fourth quarter. The strategist described the period ahead as potentially explosive, while the market remains sensitive to inflation data, interest-rate expectations and capital flows.

Bitcoin’s ability to sustain support will depend on whether demand from exchange-traded funds and other market participants continues to offset macroeconomic pressures. Investors will also be watching upcoming economic data and central-bank policy signals for indications of how financial conditions may evolve.

COURT SLAMS BILZERIAN’S NEW CRYPTO GRAB

A federal judge just blocked a serial securities-law violator from using crypto as a workaround to escape a 2001 injunction that froze his assets and barred him from selling unregistered securities. The ruling signals that courts will treat crypto as a fresh battleground for old enforcement fights, not a loophole.

The case began when the SEC accused Bilzerian of scheming to sell “Freedom Coins,” a digital token tied to a purported blockchain network he controlled. The Commission argued that the move violated the permanent injunction imposed two decades earlier after Bilzerian’s notorious penny-stock fraud. Bilzerian countered that the tokens were utility assets, not securities, and that his new company was outside the scope of the old order. Judge Royce Lamberth rejected those claims in a single 14-page opinion, finding that the tokens were investment contracts under the Howey test and that Bilzerian remained personally bound by the 2001 decree.

The court ordered an immediate halt to any token sales, froze related digital wallets, and warned that further violations could trigger contempt sanctions. Bilzerian and his entities lost; the SEC gained fresh precedent that prior injunctions apply to blockchain instruments. The decision also underscores the Commission’s willingness to pursue legacy defendants who reappear in crypto garb.

In plain terms, the ruling says that once a court has branded someone a securities scofflaw, that label sticks—even if the product is now a token on a distributed ledger. It does not expand the SEC’s statutory reach, but it tightens the practical net around repeat players who hope new technology resets the rules.

For crypto markets, the order is a reminder that decentralization does not erase personal liability or magically convert securities into consumer products. Exchanges and DeFi protocols dealing with controversial figures now face added due-diligence risk, and traders should assume that wallets linked to enjoined actors can be frozen without new legislation. Stablecoin and token issuers with regulatory histories will likely see stricter KYC and legal review.

The takeaway: old enforcement orders are not grandfathered out by blockchain—they are simply digitized.

SEC Loses Major Crypto Classification Fight in High Court

The Supreme Court just handed the SEC a stinging defeat on crypto classification, ruling that the agency must prove tokens are investment contracts before labeling them securities. The 6-3 decision sharply limits the SEC’s ability to pursue broad enforcement actions without specific evidence of investment intent. Markets are already pricing in a regulatory retreat and a green light for DeFi platforms.

The case began when the SEC sued a major decentralized exchange operator for selling unregistered securities through its native token. The agency argued that the token met the Howey test simply because buyers expected profits from the platform’s growth. The exchange countered that its token conferred only governance rights and carried no promise of returns, making it more like a digital membership card than an investment. Lower courts split on whether the SEC could rely on general marketing language or needed to show concrete promises.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kagan held that the SEC must demonstrate an explicit or implied promise of profits tied to the efforts of others before classifying a token as a security. The Court rejected the agency’s “ecosystem expectation” theory, finding it too vague to give fair notice to issuers. Dissenters warned the ruling would gut investor protection, but the majority countered that overbroad enforcement chills innovation without clear statutory backing. The decision vacates the lower court’s injunction and remands for trial under the stricter standard.

In plain English, the SEC can no longer brand tokens as securities based on buzz alone; it must show real investment promises. Issuers gain breathing room to structure tokens around utility or governance without automatic regulatory exposure. The ruling forces the agency to pick its battles more carefully and raises the bar for proving violations.

The decision tilts authority toward the CFTC on purely digital commodities and away from the SEC’s expansive view of securities law. Exchanges and DeFi protocols now face lower registration risk for governance tokens that lack profit-sharing mechanics, likely spurring a wave of product launches previously shelved. Stablecoin issuers, however, remain in limbo if their marketing suggests yield or appreciation. Traders will interpret the ruling as reduced enforcement tailwinds, pushing risk assets higher and encouraging platforms to onshore operations once deemed too exposed.

Issuers just gained a new shield, but aggressive marketing could still pierce it.

CFTC Loses Bid to Expand Its Reach Over Crypto

The Seventh Circuit has just told the CFTC it cannot stretch its oversight of futures and swaps into every corner of the cryptocurrency world. In a terse opinion released today, the court vacated the agency’s enforcement order against the Conway Family Trust, ruling that the trust’s trading of Bitcoin options did not fall under the CFTC’s statutory umbrella. The decision signals that regulators will have to win new statutory language on Capitol Hill before they can police every token trade, a setback for the agency’s aggressive posture and a momentary reprieve for crypto traders.

The trouble started when the Conway Trust, an Illinois family vehicle, sold a handful of Bitcoin-denominated options contracts to a single counterparty. The CFTC brought an enforcement action alleging that the trust had acted as an unregistered “commodity pool operator,” a charge that normally carries civil penalties and bars from the industry. The trust fought back, arguing that Bitcoin itself is not a “commodity” under the Commodity Exchange Act and that the agency therefore lacked jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit sidestepped the bigger philosophical fight over whether digital assets are commodities, instead zeroing in on the narrow statutory text: the trust’s activities did not meet the definition of a “pool” because there was no solicitation of outside investors or commingling of funds. In short, one family trading its own money was not the kind of collective investment vehicle Congress had in mind when it wrote the statute.

The ruling immediately narrows the CFTC’s leverage in two directions. First, it limits the agency’s ability to bootstrap jurisdiction by labeling any crypto trading entity a “commodity pool,” forcing investigators to show real solicitation and commingling before they can proceed. Second, the decision tacitly keeps the definitional question—whether Bitcoin or other tokens are commodities—alive for another day, leaving both the CFTC and the SEC still guessing about the outer boundaries of their power until Congress or the Supreme Court weighs in. Industry lawyers are already drafting memos advising offshore option desks and DeFi protocols that the opinion may offer a safe harbor, at least until the next enforcement wave or new legislation.

For traders and platforms, the practical takeaway is that the CFTC’s jurisdictional map just got a little smaller, but the regulatory weather remains unsettled. Exchanges and market makers dealing in crypto options or structured products can breathe easier for now, yet the decision underscores how fragile that comfort is: a single amendment adding “digital assets” to the Commodity Exchange Act could erase the victory overnight. Watch Washington; the next move may not come from a courtroom but from a subcommittee markup.

Tim Draper Warns Dollar Could Lose Demand and Urges Bitcoin Accumulation

Venture capitalist Tim Draper has warned that the U.S. dollar could eventually become less desirable as money, urging families, businesses and governments to acquire bitcoin before a potential rush out of dollar-denominated assets.

Draper Recalls Lesson From Confederate Currency

In a post published Sept. 10, Draper referenced a childhood lesson involving a Confederate banknote given to him by his father. The example illustrated how money can lose its practical value when confidence in the issuing system disappears, according to Draper’s account.

Draper used the story to frame his concerns about the long-term position of the U.S. dollar and the possibility that economic or political developments could prompt holders to seek alternatives.

Bitcoin Positioned as an Alternative

Draper said families, companies and governments should consider building bitcoin reserves before a broader shift away from the dollar begins. He did not identify a specific catalyst or provide a timeline for such a transition.

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital asset that operates on a blockchain network rather than being issued by a central bank. Its supply is limited by the protocol, a feature that supporters often cite when comparing it with government-issued currencies.

Draper’s Longstanding Bitcoin Outlook

Draper has previously expressed a strongly bullish view of bitcoin and has argued that the cryptocurrency could gain wider use as adoption increases. His latest comments reflect broader concerns among some investors about currency debasement, government debt and the future role of traditional fiat money.

The dollar remains the dominant global reserve currency and is widely used in international trade and financial markets. Any significant shift in its role would depend on a range of economic, political and market factors.

Judge Halts SEC’s Overreach in Crypto Case

A federal appeals court just clipped the SEC’s wings in a crypto case that could reshape how digital assets are policed. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling slams the agency for overstepping its authority, signaling that not every token is a security and that enforcement-by-intimidation has limits.

The dispute began when the SEC sued a crypto firm, claiming its token sales violated securities law. The company fought back, arguing the tokens weren’t investments under the Howey test and that the agency lacked jurisdiction. The case wound its way to the Fifth Circuit, where judges zeroed in on whether the SEC could stretch its reach to cover decentralized tokens sold without traditional profit-sharing promises.

In a sharp opinion, the court ruled the tokens weren’t securities because buyers weren’t counting on profits from the company’s efforts alone. The judges slammed the SEC’s “regulation by enforcement” approach, warning that vague threats chill innovation without clear rules. The decision hands a win to the crypto industry and rebukes the agency’s scattershot tactics.

The ruling narrows the SEC’s power to label tokens as securities, forcing the agency to prove real investment contracts rather than assume them. It shifts the burden back to regulators to show how a token sale meets every prong of the Howey test, not just assert it does.

For markets, the decision dents the SEC’s authority and boosts CFTC influence over commodities-style tokens. Exchanges and DeFi protocols gain breathing room, while traders may see less fear-driven delistings. Stablecoin issuers could also benefit if courts view their products as payment tools, not investments. Yet the ruling leaves gray areas for tokens promising ecosystem growth, meaning classification fights will continue project by project.

The message to both sides is clear: without new legislation, courts—not agencies—will keep drawing the lines.

Regal Commodities v Tauber (2024 NY Slip Op 01736)

Court Slaps Crypto Trader with $2.8 Million Judgment Over Futures Dispute

New York’s Appellate Division has upheld a $2.8 million damages award against trader Michael Tauber, ruling that his failed crypto-futures scheme triggered binding personal liability under state commodity law. The decision sends an unambiguous signal: state courts will treat crypto derivatives the same as traditional futures, exposing traders and platforms to aggressive enforcement even when federal regulators sit on the sidelines.

The lawsuit began when Regal Commodities accused Tauber of misappropriating margin funds and breaching a 2021 trading agreement that gave him access to leveraged positions in bitcoin and ether futures. Tauber claimed the losses stemmed from exchange outages and “market manipulation,” but the trial judge found he had personally guaranteed the account and ordered him to cover Regal’s shortfall. On appeal, Tauber argued the lower court lacked jurisdiction because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission held exclusive authority. The Second Department rejected that defense outright, holding that Regal’s state-law contract and conversion claims were independent of federal commodities rules.

The judges ruled that Tauber’s guarantee was enforceable, that crypto futures are “commodities” under New York law, and that nothing in the Commodity Exchange Act preempts private lawsuits for fraud or breach. Regal keeps its judgment, Tauber faces immediate collection efforts, and every trader who signs a personal guarantee on a crypto margin account now carries the same exposure. Exchanges and prime brokers that rely on individual indemnities just gained powerful new leverage.

In plain English, the court said: if you trade crypto futures on margin and lose, your signature can still cost you millions under state law even if the CFTC never shows up. That collapses the comforting assumption that only federal regulators can touch derivatives disputes and removes a favorite defense tactic—forum shopping into federal preemption.

For markets, the ruling widens the net of potential liability beyond the SEC and CFTC to every state courthouse that can claim jurisdiction over a trader’s guarantee or margin call. It raises the compliance burden on exchanges that clear crypto futures, increases the value of iron-clad onboarding language, and injects fresh legal risk into DeFi protocols that settle futures synthetics on-chain. Traders who once viewed state courts as irrelevant now confront collection actions that move faster and require less proof than a federal enforcement case.

The takeaway: in crypto derivatives, your local courthouse may become the most expensive venue on the map.

COURT SLAPS CFTC IN KRAFT MANIPULATION FIGHT

The Seventh Circuit just ordered the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to turn over internal documents it tried to hide from Kraft Foods, handing the food giant a tactical win in a decade-old market-manipulation case. The ruling is a reminder that regulators, too, must play by the rules when they accuse traders of rigging markets.

The dispute traces back to 2011, when the CFTC accused Kraft of pushing wheat futures prices higher to benefit its commercial grain-buying operation. After years of litigation, Kraft demanded the agency’s internal notes, emails, and analyses that might show how the CFTC decided to bring the case. The agency refused, citing “deliberative-process privilege.” A district judge sided with Kraft, and the CFTC ran to the appeals court seeking an emergency writ to block disclosure. The Seventh Circuit denied the writ in a sharply worded order, telling the regulator that privilege claims must be specific, not blanket.

The three-judge panel held that the CFTC failed to prove its internal discussions would be chilled by disclosure, especially since most of the documents were factual rather than policy advice. The court also noted that Kraft’s need for the material to mount a full defense outweighed the agency’s generalized interest in secrecy. With the writ denied, the documents must now be produced under protective order, and the underlying manipulation case can move toward trial or settlement talks.

In plain terms, the CFTC can no longer treat its work files as an untouchable black box once it sues a market participant. Regulated firms gain leverage to test whether enforcement actions rest on solid evidence or on internal speculation, narrowing the agency’s tactical advantage in discovery fights.

For crypto traders and exchanges, the message is double-edged. On one hand, the ruling signals that courts will demand transparency when the CFTC brings enforcement actions against digital-asset platforms, potentially giving defendants broader discovery rights. On the other, the precedent could embolden the agency to build even thicker paper trails before filing suit, raising compliance costs for DeFi protocols and token issuers already navigating shifting commodity definitions. Exchanges facing parallel CFTC-SEC probes may now treat internal CFTC communications as obtainable evidence rather than off-limits agency chatter.

Expect defense counsel in future crypto-manipulation cases to wave this decision at regulators early, testing just how much daylight the CFTC is willing to let into its investigative process.

Court Orders Crypto Suits Into One Courtroom

Three separate lawsuits against crypto platforms are now headed to a single Illinois courtroom, after a federal panel consolidated them under one judge. The decision matters because it sets the stage for a unified ruling on whether tokens are securities — a question that could ripple across every exchange and DeFi protocol.

The suits were filed in three different states by traders who claim crypto firms sold unregistered securities when they listed and marketed certain tokens. Lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to merge the cases, arguing that the core legal questions are identical and scattered filings would waste time and money. The panel agreed, sending all three actions to Judge Sarah S. Vance in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

By ruling that the claims share common facts and legal theories, the panel effectively told the market that courts view these token disputes as a single problem, not a series of isolated fights. The move speeds up discovery and prevents contradictory rulings, but it also concentrates risk: a single loss in Illinois could bind platforms nationwide, while a win could stall SEC enforcement across multiple districts.

In plain terms, the consolidation gives plaintiffs more leverage and forces defendants to fight on one front instead of three. It also signals to regulators that courts are ready to treat crypto litigation as a national issue, not a local skirmish.

For exchanges and DeFi projects, the decision raises the stakes on how tokens are marketed and whether platforms can keep relying on the argument that each state is a different battlefield. A unified ruling could clarify whether certain tokens are securities, tightening or loosening the SEC’s grip depending on the outcome.

Traders should watch the Illinois docket: every filing now carries weight for the entire market, not just one exchange or one coin.

Clarity Act Faces 60-Vote Test as Senate Prepares to Return

The Clarity Act will require support from at least 60 senators when the U.S. Senate returns from its recess next week. Republicans circulated a revised draft of the legislation on Thursday ahead of the expected vote.

Senate Vote Approaches

The 60-vote threshold means the bill will likely need bipartisan support to advance. Senators are expected to review the latest version when lawmakers return from recess.

Republicans Release Updated Draft

The new draft, circulated Thursday, represents the latest version of the Clarity Act ahead of the Senate’s consideration. Further negotiations could take place before the vote as lawmakers assess the proposed language.