Introduction: Why did the most promising bill fail to be born at the last minute?

The much-anticipated Digital Asset Market Clarity Act ( CLARITY Act ) suddenly came to a halt just before entering the crucial Senate review stage.

The Senate Banking Committee markup, originally scheduled for January 15, was urgently postponed at the last minute, with the latest timeframe pushed back to the end of January or even later . This means that the most systemic crypto market structure bill in the United States in nearly a decade has once again fallen into uncertainty.

The immediate trigger for this delay was Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong's public reversal on the X platform on January 14, stating that the current version of CLARITY was "worse than no bill at all." Subsequently, the pace of progress at the Senate level slowed rapidly.

But the real issue is not just a statement, but rather:

CLARITY is no longer an external game of "crypto vs. regulation," but a concentrated outbreak of a deep-seated split within the crypto industry.

I. Current progress of CLARITY: Hopes have been repeatedly postponed.

From a legislative perspective, CLARITY was not a "failure," but it was certainly not a smooth one either.

House of Representatives Phase :
CLARITY was passed in July 2025 with a large margin of 294–134 , becoming another major piece of crypto legislation in the United States after the GENIUS Act on stablecoins.
Senate Phase :
The bill is currently being pushed forward by the Senate Banking Committee (SEC oversight) and the Agriculture Committee (CFTC oversight).
The two committees were originally scheduled to review the matter simultaneously in mid-January , but the Agriculture Committee had already postponed the meeting to January 27 , while the Banking Committee chose to postpone it at the last minute.
Short-term outlook :
Most policy observers estimate that there is a 50-60% chance of it passing in 2026. However, the midterm elections, political maneuvering, and a crowded agenda could still push the timeline back to 2027.

II. The core of the controversy: Where exactly is CLARITY stuck?

The controversy surrounding CLARITY is not about technical details, but rather a direct clash of interests and ideologies . The following issues constitute the "minefield" in the current negotiations.

Stablecoin Yields: A Head-to-Head Battle Between Banks and Crypto

This is the most direct and also the most damaging point of conflict.

The current version of CLARITY almost completely prohibits "passive income" for stablecoins , not only restricting issuers from paying interest, but also significantly reducing the space for third parties to provide rewards and income.

The logic of banks and traditional financial lobbying groups is clear:
Interest-bearing stablecoins can siphon off bank deposits, weaken community banking systems, and even threaten financial stability.
The crypto industry's counterattack was equally direct:
This is essentially bank protectionism and regulatory capture; restricting stablecoin yields will stifle DeFi's core competitiveness and weaken the dollar's position in the global digital financial system.

Coinbase's strong opposition began from this point.

Tokenized Stocks and RWA: A De facto "High Barrier to Entry"

CLARITY has been criticized for setting up an almost insurmountable barrier in the realm of tokenized stocks, bonds, and other RWAs (real-world assets) , effectively creating a de facto ban .

Opponents argue that :
This directly cuts off the biggest growth point for blockchain to bring capital markets onto the chain, and the United States may fall behind in the race for next-generation financial infrastructure.
Concerns of regulatory conservatives :
Tokenization could circumvent the securities law system, creating systemic risks and regulatory arbitrage opportunities.

DeFi Regulation and Privacy: A Red Line Conflict

In the DeFi space, CLARITY has been criticized for potentially imposing excessive AML/KYC and reporting obligations on the protocol, and even giving governments near-unlimited access to users' financial records.

The judgment of crypto fundamentalists :
This would destroy the core values of DeFi—privacy, self-custody, and permissionless.
Some Democratic lawmakers and former regulatory officials believe that:
The current draft still provides insufficient exemptions for developers and agreements, and there are loopholes in investor protection.

SEC vs CFTC: A Redistribution of Regulatory Power

CLARITY attempted to delineate the responsibilities of the SEC and CFTC, but many industry insiders believe that it still leans towards the SEC at a crucial stage , weakening the CFTC's dominance on "digital goods".

From the industry's perspective, this means that crypto may still be suppressed by the "securitization path" in the long term.

III. Support and Opposition: It's not about who's right or wrong, but rather about different approaches.

The unique aspect of the CLARITY debate is that:

Both sides believe they are acting "for the good of the industry".

The side supporting the push (the realist camp)

Including a16z, Circle, Kraken, Ripple , and several Republican lawmakers, the core logic is:

Even flawed but clear rules are better than a long-term regulatory vacuum and enforcement-style regulation.

What they value more is:

Federal Unified Framework
Clear Compliance Path
The possibility of institutional funds entering the market

In their view, CLARITY is a "starting point that can be patched up".

The party that strongly opposes this (the principled camp)

Coinbase , for example, has a remarkably clear stance:

A bad bill can be more harmful to law enforcement than no bill at all.

Coinbase's core concern is:

Vague clauses may be amplified indefinitely.
Restrictions on DeFi, stablecoins, and RWA, once enshrined in law, would incur extremely high legislative costs.
The industry may be permanently locked into a "bank-led compliance framework".

Therefore, they chose to block first, and then negotiate .

In conclusion: The real test of CLARITY has only just begun.

The CLARITY Act is no longer just a legislative attempt.

It is becoming a roadmap for the future of cryptography :

Should we first enter the system and then gradually repair it?
Or should we stick to our bottom line and accept uncertainty?

The strong involvement of banking lobbying groups has further complicated this game; while Coinbase's tough stance has brought the conflict to the surface.

What can be confirmed is:

CLARITY will not end here, but it will not pass as it is.

What truly determines its fate is not whether it is postponed, but rather—

On core issues such as stablecoin yields, DeFi freedom, and the potential of RWA, is anyone willing to compromise, and to what extent?

This legislation on "clarity" has ironically exposed the most unclear aspect of the crypto world:

What kind of future do we really want?

美国法官允许SEC指控Coinbase未能注册为证券业务

Popular Articles