Introduction: Originally the most promising bill—why did it "fail to deliver" at the last moment?
The highly anticipated Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (DAMCA) CLARITY Act), suddenly hit the brakes before entering the critical Senate review stage.
Originally scheduled for January 15th The markup by the Senate Banking Committee was urgently postponed as it approached, with the latest time window pushed back to Late January or even laterThis means that in the past decade in the United States,The most systematic bill on the structure of the cryptocurrency market, once again falling into uncertainty.
The immediate trigger for this delay was Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong On January 14th, openly "flipped" on the X platform, directly stating that the current version of CLARITY "Worse than having no law at all."Subsequently, the pace of progress at the Senate level quickly slowed down.
But the real issue is not just making a statement once, but rather:
CLARITY is no longer an external struggle between "crypto versus regulation," but rather a concentrated outbreak of a deep-seated divergence in strategic direction within the crypto industry itself.
I. Current Progress of CLARITY: Repeatedly Postponed
From the perspective of the legislative path, CLARITY was not a "failure," but it was clearly not smooth either.
House Stage:
CLARITY has been released on July 2025 by 294 - 134 Its large majority passage has made it a major cryptocurrency-related bill in the United States, 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).
Originally scheduled for two committees in Review and approval in mid-January, but the Agriculture Committee has already postponed the time to January 27thAt the final moment, the Banking Committee chose to postpone the decision.
Short-term Outlook:
Most policy observers have concluded that:Approximately 50–60% chance of passing in 2026However, midterm elections, political maneuvering, and a crowded agenda could still push the timeline to 2027.
II. Core Issue of the Dispute: Where Exactly Is CLARITY Stuck?
The controversy surrounding CLARITY is not about technical details, but rather...Direct conflict between interests and principlesThe following issues constitute the "minefields" in the current negotiations.
Stablecoin Yields: A Head-to-Head War Between Banks and Cryptocurrency
This is the most direct and also the most damaging point of conflict.
Current version of CLARITY Nearly comprehensive ban on "passive income" from stablecoinsNot only is the issuer's payment of interest restricted, but even the space for third parties to provide rewards or returns has been significantly compressed.
Banks and Traditional Financial Lobby GroupsThe logic is very clear:
Interest-bearing stablecoins could drain bank deposits, weaken the community banking system, and even threaten financial stability.
The Comeback of the Cryptocurrency IndustrySame thing, straightforward:
This is essentially financial protectionism and regulatory capture; restricting stablecoin yields will stifle the core competitiveness of DeFi and weaken the U.S. dollar's position in the global digital financial system.
Coinbase's strong opposition begins precisely from this point.
Tokenized Stocks and RWA: The De Facto "High Threshold Blockade"
CLARITY has been criticized for tokenizing stocks, bonds, etc. RWA (Real-World Assets) The field has set nearly insurmountable barriers, forming... de facto ban (a de facto prohibition).
Opponents argue that...:
This directly cuts off the largest growth point for blockchain to bring capital markets onto the chain, potentially causing the U.S. to fall behind in the competition for the next-generation financial infrastructure.
Concerns of the regulatory conservatives:
Tokenization may bypass the securities law framework, creating systemic risks and regulatory arbitrage.
DeFi Regulation and Privacy: A Critical Conflict
In the DeFi field, CLARITY has been criticized for potentially requiring protocols to assume Excessive AML/KYC and Reporting Obligations, and even granting the government nearly "unlimited access to users' financial records."
The judgment of crypto-anarchists:
This will destroy the core values of DeFi—privacy, self-custody, and permissionlessness.
Some Democratic Party legislators and former regulatory officialsthinks that:
The current draft still provides insufficient exemptions for developers and protocols, leaving gaps in investor protection.
SEC vs. CFTC: Redistribution of Regulatory Authority
CLARITY attempts to delineate the responsibilities of the SEC and the CFTC, but it is considered by many industry insiders to be... Still leaning towards the SEC during the critical phase., which undermines the CFTC's authority over "digital commodities."
In the industry's view, this means that encryption may still be subject to long-term suppression through the "securitization pathway."
III. Support and Opposition: It's Not a Matter of Right or Wrong, but of Different Approaches
What makes the CLARITY dispute special is:
Both sides believe they are acting in the best interest of the industry.
The faction that supports and promotes progress (the realist camp)
Including a16z, Circle, Kraken, Ripple As well as several Republican legislators, the core logic is:
Clear rules with flaws are better than long-term regulatory vacuums and enforcement-style regulation.
What they value more is:
Federal Unification Framework
The compliance path is clear.
Possibility of Institutional Capital Entering the Market
In their view, CLARITY is a "starting point that can be repaired."
The faction strongly opposed (the principled camp)
With Coinbase As a representative, their position is exceptionally clear:
A "bad law" may cause more harm at the enforcement level than having no law at all.
Coinbase's core concerns are:
Ambiguous terms may be infinitely amplified.
Once restrictions on DeFi, stablecoins, and RWA are codified into law, the cost of amending the law will be extremely high.
The industry may be permanently locked into a "bank-dominated compliance framework."
Therefore, they choose to First block, then negotiate..
Conclusion: The true test for CLARITY has just begun.
The CLARITY Act is no longer just a legislative effort.
It is becoming a matter of... The Future Form of Cryptography Route selection:
Is it better to first enter the system and then gradually fix things?
Still adhere to the bottom line, preferring to bear uncertainty?
The strong involvement of banking lobbying groups has made this contest even more complex; meanwhile, Coinbase's firm stance has brought the conflicts to the surface.
It can be determined that:
CLARITY will not come to an end, but it is also impossible to pass unchanged.
What truly determines its fate is not whether it is postponed, but rather—
On core issues such as stablecoin yields, DeFi flexibility, and the RWA (Real-World Assets) space,Whether anyone is willing to compromise, and to what extent.
This legislation regarding "clarity" has instead exposed the most ambiguous aspects of the crypto world:
What kind of future do we really want?