- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
The Senate Banking Committee postponed a planned Thursday markup of the Clarity Act after Coinbase withdrew support for the legislation, citing concerns over provisions that would restrict stablecoin-related rewards.
The delay extends regulatory uncertainty for the U.S. crypto industry and highlights persistent disagreements over how digital asset rules should balance innovation with consumer protection.
The Senate Banking Committee confirmed late Wednesday that it would postpone its planned Clarity Act markup, initially scheduled for Thursday morning, as negotiations between lawmakers and industry stakeholders continued behind closed doors. The decision came shortly after formally withdrew its support for the latest draft of the bill.
Committee Chairman said the pause was necessary to allow further bipartisan discussions, though he did not announce a new date for the Clarity Act markup. The legislation is designed to overhaul U.S. crypto market structure, clarify how digital tokens are classified, and assign primary oversight of spot crypto markets to the .
Coinbase’s reversal added fresh tension to an already delicate legislative process. The company has been one of the most vocal advocates for comprehensive crypto legislation and had previously signaled cautious optimism about the direction of talks. Its withdrawal, however, highlighted lingering disagreements over how far the bill should go in restricting certain crypto-related incentives.
Coinbase CEO said the exchange could no longer support the bill after reviewing the revised text shared with lawmakers.
“After reviewing the Senate Banking draft text over the last 48hrs, Coinbase unfortunately can’t support the bill as written,” Armstrong said in a public statement.
At the center of Coinbase’s concerns are provisions touching on stablecoin-related rewards, an issue that has triggered an intense lobbying battle between crypto firms and traditional banks. Banking groups argue that allowing crypto platforms to offer rewards tied to stablecoin usage could resemble interest-bearing deposits, blurring regulatory lines Congress has already drawn.
Lawmakers backing the bill have pointed to the , which prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest simply for holding a payment stablecoin. Banks contend that the current market structure proposal must close what they describe as an “end run” around those restrictions, a debate that has directly shaped the evolving language of the Clarity Act markup.
Despite the setback, Senator Scott sought to reassure both industry players and fellow lawmakers that negotiations remain active and constructive.
“This bill reflects months of serious bipartisan negotiations and real input from innovators, investors and law enforcement,” Scott said.
“The goal is to deliver clear rules of the road that protect consumers, strengthen our national security, and ensure the future of finance is built in the United States.”
Scott added that he has spoken with stakeholders across the crypto and financial sectors as well as colleagues from both parties, emphasizing that “everyone remains at the table working in good faith.” His comments suggest the delay in the Clarity Act markup is intended as a tactical pause rather than a signal that the legislation is in jeopardy.
Under the current draft, the bill would prohibit paying interest solely for holding a stablecoin, while still allowing rewards linked to specific activities such as payments or loyalty programs. Disclosure and implementation details would be jointly developed by the and the CFTC, a shared responsibility meant to reduce regulatory overlap.
For crypto firms and investors, the postponed Clarity Act markup means a longer wait for a unified regulatory framework that could replace years of case-by-case enforcement actions.
The committee had originally planned to take up the bill during a Thursday session scheduled for 10 a.m. ET, raising hopes that Congress was finally close to delivering long-promised clarity.
The delay also comes as the Senate’s broader crypto agenda faces scheduling shifts. , chairman of the , has pushed his committee’s own markup deeper into January, citing the need for more time to finalize policy details and secure wider support.
Together, the postponements underscore how fragile momentum remains for crypto legislation on Capitol Hill. While supporters argue that a carefully negotiated Clarity Act markup could cement the United States as a global hub for digital asset innovation, critics warn that unresolved disputes risk prolonging regulatory ambiguity.
For now, the crypto industry remai11ns in limbo, watching closely as lawmakers attempt to reconcile competing interests and revive the Clarity Act markup without losing critical industry backing.
