The CLARITY Act can sort tokens into neat boxes, but it sti…

The CLARITY Act can sort tokens into neat boxes, but it still leaves the public with the same fatal confusion: mistaking a screen balance for ownership. This piece cuts through that fog with one simple tool—the Control–Entitlement–Property triad—grounded in a coat-check analogy that anyone understands. Who holds the coat is control. What the ticket lets you demand is entitlement. Who owns the coat when the counter catches fire is property. From there, the argument becomes unavoidable: real consumer protection does not come from protocol labels or capability tests, but from custody mechanics—segregation you can verify, audits that bite, withdrawal rights that cannot be “paused” on a whim, and insolvency treatment that keeps customer assets out of the general pile. This is clarity that survives failure, not clarity that survives a committee hearing.
Written by S. Tominaga