Which tokens are exposed if the CLARITY Act passes

What we measured and how

Early Thunder maintains a 251-token scorecard rating each asset across 25 variables from 1 to 10. Three map onto what the CLARITY Act cares about. Regulatory safety captures existing enforcement exposure and jurisdictional posture. Holder concentration captures how much supply sits with insiders. Institutional adoption captures whether regulated venues already touch the asset.

We combined them into a readiness score out of 100, weighting regulatory safety at 50 percent, holder concentration at 30 percent, and institutional adoption at 20 percent.

Be clear about what the concentration variable is doing. The bill's ownership test asks whether the issuer, related persons and affiliated persons together hold 20 percent or more of total units, with affiliation triggered by acquiring 5 percent or more from the issuer. Our holder concentration score is a research proxy for insider-heavy cap tables. It is not that statutory calculation, which needs cap-table data most projects have never published. Treat this as our own heuristic, not a legal opinion and not a prediction of any regulator's decision.

The distribution is worse than the narrative

Six tokens out of 251 score 70 or above. Ethereum leads at 88, bitcoin at 83, then Avalanche, Chainlink, Uniswap and Maker. Seventy-three land between 50 and 69. One hundred and fifty-three sit between 35 and 49. Nineteen fall below 35.

The median is 45 out of 100. That is the headline. The market talks about the CLARITY Act as a rising tide, and for assets already on the right side of the line it probably is. For the median token in a broad altcoin portfolio, a written classification framework is not obviously good news. It converts an unresolved question into a documented answer, and the answer is not guaranteed to be favourable.

The concentration numbers explain most of it. Of 251 tokens, 194 score four or below on holder concentration and 55 score three or below. Insider-heavy supply is the norm, not the exception, and aggregate insider ownership is exactly what the bill's 20 percent test measures.

Where the money actually sits

Aggregate market cap tells a sharper story than token counts. The top band holds $1.74 trillion, but that is bitcoin and ether doing nearly all of the work. Strip those two out and the picture inverts.

Of the $429 billion of remaining tracked market cap, $138 billion sits in the most exposed band. That is 32 percent. Two names carry most of it. BNB scores 29 against $88.7 billion of market cap, and TRON scores 25 against $35.5 billion. Both are penalised on the same two axes, low regulatory safety and concentrated supply, and both are large enough that their treatment would set the market's read on what the framework means in practice.

The rest of the exposed band mixes privacy assets, exchange tokens, and gaming or meme names. Monero at 29 is its own category, since the issue there is not supply distribution but whether a privacy-preserving asset fits any of the bill's boxes at all.

How to use this

Not as a buy or sell list. Classification readiness is one input and it says nothing about whether a protocol earns money or has users. A high readiness score on an asset with no revenue is still an asset with no revenue.

What it is good for is sizing an unhedged exposure. If a portfolio is concentrated in names from the bottom band, then passage is a risk event rather than a catalyst, which is the opposite of the position most holders think they hold. Reading the score alongside a protocol's actual revenue is the more useful exercise, and both live on the same scorecard.