Here’s why crypto firms wants US Congress to pass the Clarity Act

The US crypto industry has launched a unified push for Congress to pass federal market-structure legislation, known as the “Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025” (H.R. 3633).

The legislation is viewed by industry proponents as the necessary “missing layer” of federal law to allow the industry to thrive.

While the “GENIUS Act” established baseline rules for payment stablecoins last year, the Clarity Act aims to establish the overarching market structure for secondary trading, asset classification, and intermediary registration.

Without it, major players argue, the US market remains trapped in a patchwork of state licensing and enforcement-driven guidance.

Yet, the path to a deal remains fraught with complex technical hurdles.

According to Alex Thorn, Head of Research at Galaxy Research, a bipartisan meeting held on Jan. 6
laid bare a stark divide between a Republican push for speed and a slate of new Democratic requirements that could fundamentally alter the legislation’s impact on token issuance and software development.

The issues stalling the Clarity Act

Notably, the immediate flashpoint is the Senate calendar. Republicans are pushing for a Senate Banking Committee markup of the bill as early as next Thursday, Jan. 15.

This aggressive timeline is designed to lock in a framework before the legislative window narrows later in the year.

However, Thorn’s analysis of Wednesday’s bipartisan talks suggests it remains unclear if the two sides can bridge significant policy gaps in time to secure a framework that can pass both chambers.

The primary friction point has emerged around the treatment of decentralized finance (DeFi).

According to Thorn, Democrats have introduced a series of robust demands to bring the DeFi sector under the umbrella of traditional financial surveillance.

Some of their key requests include mandating “front-end sanctions compliance” for DeFi interfaces, a requirement that would force developers to screen users at the point of access, and granting the Treasury Department increased “special measures” authority to police the sector.

Furthermore, Democrats are seeking specific rulemaking provisions for “non-decentralized” DeFi. This category creates a new regulatory bucket that would likely capture many existing projects that claim to be decentralized but retain some degree of administrative control or centralized hosting.

Beyond the structural debate over software, the Democratic proposal includes a suite of stricter investor protections. Negotiators are pressing for new rules governing crypto ATMs and expanded consumer protection powers for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Perhaps most consequential for the capital formation side of the industry is a proposed $200 million cap on the amount of capital issuers can raise under certain exemptions.

Additionally, the proposal would flip the current regulatory dynamic on its head: rather than waiting for enforcement, protocols would be required to proactively approach the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to declare they are not securities.

This “reverse the catch-me-if-you-can” dynamic represents a significant tightening of the compliance burden for early-stage projects.

The battle over stablecoin yield

While the debate over DeFi is largely ideological and technical, the fight over stablecoin yield has turned into a raw battle over banking revenue.

The bipartisan talks highlighted that the regulatory treatment of stablecoin rewards, a critical revenue driver for the crypto sector, remains an unresolved structural issue requiring significant discussion before a markup is feasible.

US banks have lobbied aggressively against allowing stablecoin issuers to pass yield from reserve assets (such as Treasury bills) to holders. They argue that such a mechanism would siphon deposits away from the traditional banking system.

However, crypto firms have pushed back, characterizing the banking lobby’s stance as protectionism rather than prudential concern.

Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase’s chief policy officer, argued that Congress effectively settled the stablecoin question with the GENIUS Act and that reopening the yield debate now creates unnecessary uncertainty that risks the future of the US dollar as commerce moves on-chain.

Shirzad framed the dispute in stark financial terms, pointing to data that indicates that US banks earn approximately $176 billion per year on the roughly $3 trillion they park at the Federal Reserve.

Additionally, traditional financial firms earn another $187 billion annually from card swipe fees, averaging about $1,440 per household.

According to him:

“That’s $360B+ annually from payments and deposits alone (and massive unused lending capacity that the Federal Reserve pays the banks to have sit in a drawer somewhere).”

He pointed out that stablecoin rewards threaten those margins by introducing real competition in payments. He added:

“The data is clear, and it doesn’t support the bank position. This summer, Charles River Associates found no statistically significant relationship between USDC growth and community-bank deposits. Different users, different use cases—and people don’t treat stablecoins as bank-deposit substitutes.”

This sentiment was echoed by Alexander Grieve, the VP of Government Affairs at venture firm Paradigm.

Grieve noted that bank lobbying organizations are characterizing the allowance of yield-bearing stablecoins as an “extinction-level event” for their members.

“The funny thing? It isn’t,” Grieve said, citing a December study that found stablecoins actually assist credit creation.

He added:

“The most ironic thing about this entire situation is that the bank-alleged untenable status quo established by GENIUS… WILL REMAIN THE STATUS QUO IF THE BANKS BLOW UP MARKET STRUCTURE!”

Institutional ambitions

The urgency from crypto lobbying groups relies on a core assumption that these legislative knots will untangle into bank-grade standards that favor incumbents.

For major US crypto firms, the Clarity Act is less about avoiding lawsuits and more about unlocking institutional business models that are currently stalled by regulatory opacity.

Reece Merrick, a senior executive at Ripple, emphasized this operational bottleneck. He stated:

“The US still lacks comprehensive regulatory clarity for the broader crypto ecosystem, which continues to hold back US-based entities from fully thriving and innovating in this space.”

He noted that his firm is “actively advocating for better, more thoughtful frameworks to level the playing field and drive the next phase of growth,” expressing optimism that the Clarity Act could deliver that certainty in the near term.

This position aligns with Ripple’s aggressive moves to integrate itself into the traditional financial system. The company has a US national bank charter and is seeking Federal Reserve access tied to its RLUSD stablecoin reserves and settlement ambitions, steps that require a federally regulated environment to function.

This institutional pivot was further reinforced by Ripple’s recent purchase of prime broker Hidden Road, a platform that clears approximately $3 trillion annually for more than 300 clients.

The deal signals a strategic focus on workflows that depend on custody, collateral segregation, and audit-ready operational controls, features that are difficult to offer at scale without the federal lanes the Clarity Act aims to provide.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong offered a similar assessment of the bill’s potential economic impact, saying:

“This bill will get crypto further unlocked in the U.S. with clear rules, which will benefit all businesses, protect customers, and unleash builders.”

Global pressure

As the Senate debates markup dates and sanctions language, the broader argument for passing the bill is shifting from crypto-specific sentiment to hard fiscal reality and global competition.

Domestically, proponents are increasingly linking the structure of the crypto market to the health of government finances. Research from the Brookings Institution has connected stablecoin growth to demand for short-term Treasuries, providing a non-bank buyer base for US debt.

A 2025 paper estimated that a 1% increase in stablecoin demand could reduce short-maturity T-bill yields by roughly 1 to 2 basis points, a quantifiable channel that turns stablecoin scale into a consideration for the Treasury Department.

Internationally, the cost of delay is becoming tangible as global competitors are moving into execution mode.

For context, Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation is already establishing a single-market licensing benchmark, with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) publishing detailed implementation templates that provide firms with a clear compliance roadmap.

In Asia, hubs like Hong Kong and Singapore are advancing rules specifically designed to capture the liquidity that US firms aim to onshore.

Senator Cynthia Lummis, a vocal advocate for the legislation, highlighted this jurisdictional arbitrage as a key driver for the Jan. 15 push. She stated:

“For far too long, unclear rules have pushed digital asset companies offshore. Our market structure legislation changes that by establishing clear jurisdiction, strong protections, and ensuring America leads the way.”