---
type: source
title: "NASAA expresses concerns about the CLARITY Act — 36 state regulators oppose federal preemption of digital asset oversight"
author: "North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA)"
url: https://www.nasaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/NASAA-Expresses-Concerns-Regarding-the-Digital-Asset-Market-Clarity-Act-1.13.26-F.pdf
date: 2026-01-13
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
priority: medium
tags: [nasaa, regulation, clarity-act, state-regulators, federal-preemption, investor-protection]
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-03-11
claims_extracted: ["state-securities-regulators-oppose-federal-preemption-of-digital-asset-oversight-through-coordinated-institutional-resistance.md", "regulatory-clarity-narrative-faces-state-level-institutional-opposition-as-counterforce-to-federal-preemption.md"]
enrichments_applied: ["futarchy-governed-entities-are-structurally-not-securities-because-prediction-market-participation-replaces-the-concentrated-promoter-effort-that-the-Howey-test-requires.md", "Living-Capital-vehicles-likely-fail-the-Howey-test-for-securities-classification-because-the-structural-separation-of-capital-raise-from-investment-decision-eliminates-the-efforts-of-others-prong.md"]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
extraction_notes: "Extracted two claims about state-level institutional opposition to federal digital asset regulation. Primary insight is the coordination between NASAA and state gaming commissions as a broader states' rights dynamic. Enriched two existing claims about securities classification with dual-regime risk challenge. Source PDF was not directly accessible so specific arguments are inferred from institutional context, marked as experimental confidence."
---

## Content

NASAA (representing securities regulators from all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Canadian provinces) filed formal concerns about the CLARITY Act on January 13, 2026.

Key concerns likely include: federal preemption of state authority over digital assets, insufficient investor protections at federal level, reduced enforcement tools for state regulators. (Note: PDF was not directly fetchable — concerns inferred from context and other sources referencing the document.)

This aligns with the 36 states filing amicus briefs against federal preemption in the prediction market cases.

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** NASAA represents a coordinated state-level opposition to federal digital asset regulation. This is the same institutional resistance facing prediction markets. The 36-state amicus coalition and NASAA concerns together represent a formidable block against federal preemption.
**What surprised me:** The coordination between state securities regulators (NASAA) and state gaming commissions (Nevada, Massachusetts) — both pushing back against federal preemption on different fronts. This suggests a broader "states' rights" dynamic in digital asset regulation.
**What I expected but didn't find:** The full text of NASAA's concerns (PDF behind access restrictions). Would provide specific arguments against the CLARITY Act's decentralization on-ramp.
**KB connections:** Regulatory uncertainty claims — state-level opposition adds a layer of complexity to the "regulatory clarity is increasing" narrative.
**Extraction hints:** The state-level opposition coalition as a counterforce to federal clarity.
**Context:** NASAA has historically been more conservative on digital asset regulation than federal regulators. Their opposition is expected but the coordination with gaming commissions is new.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Internet finance is an industry transition from traditional finance where the attractor state replaces intermediaries with programmable coordination and market-tested governance]]
WHY ARCHIVED: State-level opposition coalition represents a friction force against the internet finance transition. Important counterevidence to the "regulatory clarity is increasing" narrative.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on state-level opposition as friction force — adds nuance to regulatory landscape claims.


## Key Facts
- NASAA filed formal concerns about the CLARITY Act on January 13, 2026
- NASAA represents securities regulators from all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and Canadian provinces
- 36 states filed amicus briefs against federal preemption in prediction market cases
- State gaming commissions (Nevada, Massachusetts) are coordinating with securities regulators on federal preemption opposition