Introduction: Why Did the Most Promising Bill Face "Difficulties" at the Last Moment?
The highly anticipated Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) suddenly hit the brakes just before entering the critical review stage in the Senate.
The markup session originally scheduled for January 15 by the Senate Banking Committee was urgently postponed, with the latest time window pushed back to the end of January or even later. This means that the most systematic piece of cryptocurrency market structure legislation in the U.S. in nearly a decade has once again fallen into uncertainty.
The immediate trigger for this delay was Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly "turning against" the current version of CLARITY on January 14 on the X platform, stating that it is "worse than having no bill at all." Subsequently, the pace of advancement at the Senate level quickly slowed.
However, the real issue is not just a single statement, but rather:
CLARITY is no longer a "crypto vs. regulation" external game, but a concentrated outbreak of a deep-seated ideological split within the cryptocurrency industry.
I. Current Progress of CLARITY: Hope Repeatedly Delayed
From a legislative perspective, CLARITY is not a "failure," but it is clearly not going smoothly either.
House Stage:
CLARITY passed the House on July 2025 with a significant margin of 294–134, becoming another heavyweight piece of cryptocurrency legislation following the stablecoin GENIUS Act.
Senate Stage:
The bill is currently being advanced jointly by the Senate Banking Committee (related to SEC regulation) and the Agriculture Committee (related to CFTC regulation).
The two committees were originally scheduled to review it simultaneously in mid-January, but the Agriculture Committee has already postponed its review to January 27, while the Banking Committee chose to delay at the last moment.
Short-term Outlook:
Most policy observers estimate the probability of passing in 2026 to be around 50–60%. However, midterm elections, political maneuvering, and a crowded agenda could still push the timeline to 2027.
II. Core Controversies: Where is CLARITY Stuck?
The controversy surrounding CLARITY is not about technical details, but rather a direct conflict of interests and ideologies. The following issues constitute the "minefield" of current negotiations.
Stablecoin Yields: A Direct War Between Banks and Crypto
This is the most direct and lethal point of conflict.
The current version of CLARITY almost completely prohibits "passive yields" on stablecoins, not only restricting interest payments by issuers but also significantly compressing the space for third parties to provide rewards and yields.
The logic of banks and traditional financial lobbying groups is clear:
Interest-bearing stablecoins will siphon off bank deposits, weaken community banking systems, and even threaten financial stability.
The crypto industry's counterattack is equally direct:
This is essentially bank protectionism and regulatory capture; limiting stablecoin yields will stifle the core competitiveness of DeFi and weaken the dollar's position in the global digital financial system.
Coinbase's strong opposition starts from this point.
Tokenized Stocks and RWA: A De Facto "High Barrier Blockade"
CLARITY has been criticized for setting nearly insurmountable barriers in the field of tokenized stocks, bonds, and other RWA (Real World Assets), resulting in a de facto ban.
Opponents argue:
This directly cuts off the biggest growth point for blockchain to bring capital markets on-chain, and the U.S. may fall behind in the next generation of financial infrastructure competition.
Regulatory conservatives' concerns:
Tokenization may bypass the securities law system, creating systemic risks and regulatory arbitrage.
DeFi Regulation and Privacy: A Red Line Conflict
In the DeFi space, CLARITY has been criticized for potentially requiring protocols to bear excessive AML/KYC and reporting obligations, even granting the government near "unlimited access to users' financial records."
Judgment from crypto fundamentalists:
This will destroy the core values of DeFi—privacy, self-custody, and permissionless access.
Some Democratic lawmakers and former regulatory officials believe:
The current draft's exemptions for developers and protocols are still insufficient, and there are gaps in investor protection.
SEC vs. CFTC: Redistribution of Regulatory Power
CLARITY attempts to delineate the responsibilities of the SEC and CFTC, but many industry insiders believe it still leans towards the SEC at critical stages, weakening the CFTC's dominance over "digital commodities."
In the industry's view, this means that crypto may still be long-term suppressed by the "securitization path."
III. Support and Opposition: It's Not About Right or Wrong, But Different Paths
The uniqueness of the CLARITY dispute lies in:
Both sides believe they are "acting for the good of the industry."
The Supporting Side (Realist Camp)
Including a16z, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, and several Republican lawmakers, their core logic is:
Flawed clear rules are better than a long-term regulatory vacuum and enforcement-style regulation.
What they value more is:
A unified federal framework
Clear compliance pathways
The possibility of institutional capital entry
In their view, CLARITY is a "repairable starting point."
The Strongly Opposing Side (Principled Camp)
Represented by Coinbase, their position is exceptionally clear:
A "bad bill" could cause more harm in enforcement than having no bill at all.
Coinbase's core concerns are:
Ambiguous terms could be infinitely expanded
Restrictions on DeFi, stablecoins, and RWA, once written into law, would have extremely high amendment costs
The industry could be permanently locked into a "bank-dominated compliance framework"
Thus, they choose to block first, then negotiate.
Conclusion: The Real Test of CLARITY is Just Beginning
The CLARITY Act is no longer just a legislative attempt.
It is becoming a choice about the future shape of crypto:
Should we enter the system first and then slowly repair it?
Or should we hold the line and endure uncertainty?
The strong intervention of banking lobbying groups has made this game more complex; while Coinbase's strong statement has brought the contradictions to the surface.
What is certain is:
CLARITY will not end here, but it cannot pass in its current form either.
What truly determines its fate is not whether it is delayed, but rather—
On core issues such as stablecoin yields, DeFi freedom, and RWA space, whether anyone is willing to make concessions and to what extent.
This legislative battle over "clarity" has instead exposed the most unclear aspects of the crypto world:
What kind of future do we really want?
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
