Why was US CLARITY Act postponed?

The US crypto industry believed it stood on the precipice of securing the regulatory legitimacy it has pursued for a decade, but the political ground has suddenly shifted beneath it.

On Jan. 14, Sen. Tim Scott, the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, postponed a vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.

This delay effectively halted Washington’s most advanced attempt yet to establish comprehensive “rules of the road” for the $3 trillion digital asset market.

While Chair Scott characterized the postponement as a tactical pause to keep stakeholders “at the table working in good faith,” the sudden brake-pumping reveals a fractured coalition within the emerging industry.

The Coinbase veto

Notably, the measure once enjoyed bipartisan momentum, but the delay came hours after Coinbase, the largest US crypto exchange, publicly rejected the bill.

In a Jan. 14 statement on X, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong declared the company could not support the legislation “in its current form.”

His declaration effectively acted as a structural veto and forced a reset on a bill designed to settle the industry’s most existential questions: when a token serves as a security, when it acts as a commodity, and which federal agency holds the ultimate gavel.

His objections also cited a “de facto ban” on tokenized equities and provisions that would “kill rewards on stablecoins.”

Moreover, the draft bill, widely anticipated to hand oversight of spot crypto markets to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), represented a years-in-the-making compromise.

However, Armstrong’s critique suggested the draft language may have re-empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) more than the industry anticipated.

This distinction is vital. Market structure legislation determines more than just which agency processes registration forms. It dictates who sets the default standards for disclosure, custody, and enforcement for a nascent asset class.

If tokenized stocks or stock-like instruments are effectively walled off, the US risks slowing a market where crypto rails are beginning to collide with traditional capital markets. That collision is increasingly happening through programmable compliance and on-chain collateral.

Meanwhile, Citron Research argued that Coinbase pulled its support for the bill to avoid empowering rivals that have already done the heavy lifting on compliance.

Citron specifically identified Securitize, a tokenization platform, as a threat to the US-based exchange moat. Securitize has tokenized over $4 billion in real-world assets, including BlackRock’s BUIDL.

The research firm noted that the tokenization platform already operates within existing regulatory guardrails and is poised to capture market share if Congress formalizes rules for tokenized funds.

In Citron’s view:

Notably, Coinbase stands increasingly alone in its opposition, as several rival crypto firms have endorsed the stalled bill and called for its passage.

Industry heavyweights, including venture firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), exchange operator Kraken, and payments firm Ripple, issued statements urging lawmakers to proceed.

Chris Dixon, managing partner at a16z, argued that the bill remains the best vehicle for protecting decentralization and supporting developers.

According to him:

These differing views signal that the crypto lobby, often viewed as a monolith in Washington, has splintered.

The bank pressure on stablecoin yield

Beyond the boardroom infighting, the legislation also hit a wall built by traditional finance.

Industry stakeholders noted that the most consequential fault line in the negotiations was not memecoins or exchange registrations, but the economics of stablecoins.

Over the past months, traditional financial institutions ramped up warnings that interest-like incentives on payment stablecoins could siphon cash away from regulated banks and reduce lending capacity.

In a letter to lawmakers on Jan. 13, America’s Credit Unions urged opposition to any framework allowing “yield and rewards” on payment instruments. The advocacy group cited Treasury Department estimates that $6.6 trillion in deposits could be at risk if such incentives become widespread.

The letter stated:

Considering this, the Senate draft attempted to walk a legislative tightrope to address these fears.

So, the bill prohibited paying interest “solely” for holding a stablecoin while permitting rewards tied to specific activities, such as DeFi usage.

However, legal experts warned that this distinction was porous.

Analysis of the draft language suggests the “solely linked to holding” clause delivers the optical ban banks demanded while leaving loopholes that could be “gamed” with minimal activity requirements.

As a result, this could potentially turn nominal rewards programs into shadow savings rates.

This friction explains the bill’s precarious position. It risks becoming a proxy war over whether stablecoin rewards are a consumer innovation or regulatory arbitrage that threatens the Federal Reserve’s monetary transmission mechanisms.

Global competitiveness

The collapse of the Jan. 15 vote lands late in the legislative cycle.

The House of Representatives already passed its version of market structure legislation, H.R. 3633, by a decisive 294–134 vote in July 2025. That bill has sat with the Senate Banking Committee since September, shifting the political gravity from “whether to act” to “what compromises define the act.”

So, proponents of the delay argue it provides necessary leverage for the emerging industry.

Bill Hughes, a lawyer at the software firm ConsenSys, described the postponement as “competent negotiation.” He argued that moving forward would have required compromises that would have permanently weakened US competitiveness.

He wrote:

However, others see the delay as a gamble with American leadership.

Arjun Sethi, co-CEO of Kraken, warned that walking away now would not preserve the status quo but rather lock in uncertainty while rival jurisdictions race ahead.

“Capital is mobile. Talent is global. Innovation follows regulatory clarity,” Sethi said, pointing to the comprehensive frameworks already enacted by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.

The economic reality is straightforward. When the United States delays market structure, activity does not disappear. It reallocates, often to offshore jurisdictions beyond US supervision.

Sethi noted:

What is the path forward for the CLARITY Act?

The policy signal emerging from Thursday’s chaos is unambiguous.

The next US crypto framework will be decided less by abstract debates about innovation and more by concrete answers to incentive structures.

Questions remain about whether stablecoins can behave like high-yield cash substitutes and whether tokenized securities will have a credible onshore path. Another open issue is whether a “CFTC-led” regime will truly limit SEC jurisdiction in the final statutory language.

Until Congress resolves these specific economic trade-offs, every piece of draft legislation remains one backlash away from another postponement.

For now, the chaos wins. The “CLARITY Act” is on hold, leaving American companies operating in the dark while the rest of the world moves forward.