{"id":5767,"date":"2026-01-19T10:24:32","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T10:24:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=5767"},"modified":"2026-01-19T10:24:32","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T10:24:32","slug":"coinbase-accused-of-rug-pull-as-the-white-house-weighs-killing-the-clarity-act-over-yield","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cryptonews.uk.com\/?p=5767","title":{"rendered":"Coinbase accused of “rug pull” as the White House weighs killing the CLARITY Act over yield"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly sparred with crypto reporter Eleanor Terrett this week after she questioned the exchange\u2019s stance on crypto regulation, prompting an exchange that quickly spilled onto social media and reignited tensions between industry leaders and the broader community.<\/p>\n

Senate Banking postponed its planned Jan. 15 markup of the CLARITY Act, leaving timing for Senate action on H.R. 3633 dependent on continued negotiations over language that could shape whether stablecoin rewards are treated as deposit-like yield.<\/p>\n

The committee\u2019s executive session listing for Jan. 15 is labeled \u201cPOSTPONED\u201d and \u201cStatus: POSTPONED\u201d on the panel\u2019s schedule page. No replacement date was posted in the committee record provided.<\/p>\n

Chairman Tim Scott said the markup would be delayed \u201cas bipartisan negotiations continue.\u201d He added, \u201ceveryone remains at the table working in good faith,\u201d according to his statement.<\/p>\n

The delay interrupts a legislative path that had looked linear after the House approved H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote on July 17, 2025. It was then sent to the Senate, where it was received Sept. 18, 2025, and referred for consideration.<\/p>\n

Senate Banking\u2019s majority staff announced on Jan. 9 that the committee would hold a markup on Jan. 15. The announcement framed the session as an upcoming step for digital asset market structure legislation, according to the majority\u2019s notice.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Here's\"Here's<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

Here’s how the US government now offers a path to a new all-time high for Bitcoin and crypto CLARITY<\/h3>\n

The CLARITY Act introduces a regulatory framework to harmonize SEC and CFTC oversight, redefining asset classification and safeguarding investor interests.<\/p>\n

Jan 13, 2026<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Oluwapelumi Adejumo<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

With the committee citing ongoing talks, the procedural pause is now intertwined with a product dispute that places stablecoin rewards near the center of lobbying pressure. Brian Armstrong, Coinbase\u2019s CEO, wrote in an X post that \u201cdraft amendments\u201d would \u201ckill rewards on stablecoins.\u201d<\/p>\n

Armstrong added, \u201cWe\u2019d rather have no bill than a bad bill\u201d. Coinbase withdrew support for the Senate push shortly before the markup and tied the dispute to stablecoin rewards and coalition timing.<\/p>\n

Stablecoin rewards and the deposit-like yield debate<\/h2>\n

Banks have argued that reward-bearing stablecoins can function like deposits. That framing treats \u201crewards\u201d as a consumer-facing yield product that competes with bank funding.<\/p>\n

Bank have concerns that some tokens pay reward rates resembling high-yield deposits around 3.5%.<\/p>\n

That rate reference matters for lawmakers because yield mechanics can be implemented at different layers of the stack. Those include issuer programs, exchange programs, and wallet-linked incentives, each carrying different consumer expectations and regulatory implications.<\/p>\n

Coinbase\u2019s own documentation illustrates how \u201crewards\u201d can be structured with program conditions rather than framed as a deposit interest rate. Coinbase help materials describe \u201cBoosted Rewards\u201d tied to USDC, including a base reward rate and \u201cboosted\u201d tiers based on participation requirements.<\/p>\n

Those details are laid out in Coinbase\u2019s help documentation. For Senate negotiators drafting guardrails, that distinction can drive whether any restriction bans explicit \u201cinterest,\u201d restricts marketing and pass-through yield, or limits specific reward pathways viewed as bank-like.<\/p>\n

At the same time, negotiators could aim to preserve room for incentive programs that do not resemble insured deposit accounts. The question is whether lawmakers draw the line at the stablecoin level, the exchange level, or both.<\/p>\n

\n
\"The\"The<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

The US Senate could wipe out $6 billion in crypto rewards this week by closing one specific loophole<\/h3>\n

Banks want the \u201caffiliate loophole\u201d closed; exchanges say that turns lawful loyalty incentives into an illegal end-run overnight.<\/p>\n

Jan 13, 2026<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Gino Matos<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

White House leverage claims add uncertainty to the coalition<\/h2>\n

The political overlay intensified as a claim about White House leverage circulated alongside the committee\u2019s delay.<\/p>\n

Eleanor Terrett posted<\/a> on X, citing an unnamed source, that the White House was considering pulling support unless Coinbase returned to the table with an agreement on yield that satisfies banks.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe White House is said to be furious with Coinbase\u2019s \u201cunilateral\u201d action on Wednesday, which it apparently was not notified of in advance, calling it a \u201crug pull\u201d against the White House and the rest of the industry. The White House does not believe that one company speaks for the entire industry, the source continued.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The same claim was amplified through reprints and commentary, altering perceptions of the bill\u2019s coalition strength even without official confirmation.<\/p>\n

Separately, Erik Voorhees echoed Armstrong’s \u201cno bill\u201d posture with profanity, reflecting that some parts of the crypto constituency may prefer legislative delay to constraints on reward models.<\/p>\n

Armstrong, directly called out Terrett in a reply.<\/p>\n

\n
\"BC\"BC <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

In general, love your posts, but this is not accurate. The White House has been super constructive here.<\/p>\n

They did ask us to see if we can go figure out a deal with the banks, which we’re currently working on.<\/p>\n

Actually, we’ve been cooking up some good ideas on how we can help the community banks specifically in this bill, since that’s what this is about\u2026..the community banks, right? More coming soon.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n

Terrett hit back, claiming Armstrong had validated her reporting, stating,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cMy reporting was airtight and accurate.<\/p>\n

You also just cited the central point of my story as correct: that the White House asked Coinbase to go secure a deal on yield. My reporting is that WH support now appears to be contingent on that outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The committee\u2019s postponement means the negotiation track, rather than formal amendment votes, will likely determine when and how the issue is resolved.<\/p>\n

Scale, calendar constraints, and possible paths forward<\/h2>\n

The policy stakes extend beyond the current markup because the definition of allowable rewards would scale with stablecoin supply and distribution. DeFiLlama data put the stablecoin market capitalization at about $311.563 billion at retrieval.<\/p>\n

Citi\u2019s GPS research projected stablecoin issuance of $1.9 trillion in a base scenario and $4.0 trillion in a bull scenario by 2030. The framework also tied transaction activity to velocity assumptions such as 50x, making distribution economics and balance retention central to business models, according to Citi GPS.<\/p>\n

Under those magnitudes, even narrow drafting changes around what constitutes \u201crewards\u201d could shift which intermediaries capture spreads and customer relationships. The list of potential winners and losers includes banks, exchanges, and payment firms.<\/p>\n

In the near term, the markup calendar becomes the hard constraint. Senate Banking\u2019s schedule shows only the postponed status for Jan. 15 and does not list a rescheduled executive session in the materials here.<\/p>\n

Scott\u2019s statement keeps negotiators\u2019 focus on a deal path rather than a reset. That means the next observable step for market participants is a revised date or a new draft that resolves the yield dispute without losing votes needed to advance the bill.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

Banks are lobbying to kill crypto rewards to protect a hidden $1,400 \u201ctax\u201d on every household<\/h3>\n

They earn $176B on Fed reserves and $187B in swipe fees, and now they\u2019re lobbying to shut the rewards door.<\/p>\n

Jan 10, 2026<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Gino Matos<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

Several legislative outcomes remain consistent with the record now available. One path is a rewrite that constrains deposit-like yield while permitting narrowly defined incentive programs, using definitions and disclosures that separate bank-like products from platform marketing.<\/p>\n

A second path is a longer delay if negotiators cannot agree on whether rewards should be limited at the stablecoin level, the exchange level, or both. That risk appears elevated where programs resemble consumer savings yields and industry groups publicly signal a willingness to accept delay.<\/p>\n

A third path is the bill moving with some industry support even if a large exchange remains opposed. That outcome would align with reporting that coalition dynamics were already strained around the markup window.<\/p>\n

Market participants tracking probability are also watching sentiment venues that define resolution off official sources. Polymarket listed a 2026 CLARITY Act outcome contract that references Congress.gov and official government sources for settlement, though the market price itself is not an official forecast.<\/p>\n

\n
\"CLARITY\"CLARITY<\/div>\n
Related Reading<\/span><\/p>\n

CLARITY Act explicitly leaves DeFi rules blank, risking a total retail protection collapse if negotiations fail<\/h3>\n

A January markup is the start of the sausage-making process, not the finish line Sacks claims.<\/p>\n

Dec 21, 2025<\/span> \u00b7<\/span> Gino Matos<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

For traders and compliance teams, that settlement language makes the next committee posting and any updated bill text more relevant than social-media claims, since official actions drive both legislative progress and contractual resolution criteria.<\/p>\n

For now, the only formal change is procedural and documented: Senate Banking postponed the Jan. 15 CLARITY Act markup while negotiations continue. The committee has not posted a new date in the sources available here.<\/p>\n

\n
Mentioned in this article<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n