The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act faces indefinite delay after industry leader withdraws support
Coinbase Veto Forces Senate to Reset Crypto Regulation Efforts In a clear signal of the industry’s growing political leverage, the Senate Banking Committee was forced to abort its markup of landmark digital asset legislation after Coinbase withdrew its endorsement. The “Clarity Act,” previously poised for a committee vote, collapsed after CEO Brian Armstrong declared that the industry would “rather have no bill than a bad bill”. The move highlights a shift in strategy for crypto lobbyists, who are now prioritizing the defeat of unfavorable terms such as new DeFi prohibitions and surveillance mandates over the immediate passage of regulatory clarity.
The cancellation marks a watershed moment in the ongoing battle to establish clear rules for digital assets in the United States. After months of bipartisan negotiations, the collapse of the vote demonstrates that the crypto industry now wields enough power to walk away from the table when proposed regulations cross red lines even when regulatory clarity has long been the sector’s most urgent demand.
1. The 48-Hour Reckoning
Armstrong announced Wednesday evening that Coinbase could not support the bill as written, stating the exchange would “rather have no bill than a bad bill” after reviewing the 270-page draft released Monday night. His declaration came with less than 24 hours before the Banking Committee’s scheduled Thursday morning session.
The concerns stemmed from four main areas: the treatment of tokenized equities, DeFi issues, provisions that would “kill rewards on stablecoins,” and the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Armstrong warned that portions of the bill could give the government unlimited access to financial records and undermine user privacy.
The most immediate financial impact centers on stablecoin rewards, a revenue stream projected to generate $1.3 billion for Coinbase in 2025. The proposed legislation would prohibit crypto exchanges from offering rewards to users who passively hold stablecoins, effectively eliminating Coinbase’s popular USDC rewards program that pays users approximately 3.5% annual percentage yield.
Banking groups have aggressively lobbied for these restrictions, arguing that yield-bearing stablecoins function as unregulated deposit products that could draw capital away from traditional banks and undermine their ability to lend to businesses and homebuyers. The crypto industry counters that this issue was already addressed when Congress passed the GENIUS Act in 2024, which established a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, and accuses banks of attempting to legislate away competition rather than innovate.
2. The Surveillance State Expansion
Perhaps the most controversial element of the draft bill emerged in warnings from Galaxy Digital, one of the industry’s most prominent research and advisory firms. Galaxy Head of Firmwide Research Alex Thorn wrote that the Senate Banking draft “would represent the single largest expansion to financial surveillance authorities since the USA PATRIOT Act”, the sweeping post-9/11 legislation that dramatically broadened federal surveillance and financial-monitoring powers.
The draft includes several provisions that alarmed privacy advocates and industry participants:
Temporary Transaction Holds: The bill establishes authority enabling the Treasury to pause digital asset transactions upon police requests, with a legal safe harbor for compliant companies. Under this mechanism, Treasury or other covered agencies could request that stablecoin issuers and digital asset service providers freeze transactions for up to 30 days, with possible extensions, without first obtaining a court order.
Expanded “Special Measures” Authority: The legislation would create new tools allowing the U.S. Treasury to designate foreign jurisdictions, financial organizations, or types of digital asset transactions as major money-laundering risks, enabling restrictions or conditions on certain crypto fund transfers. Galaxy compared this directly to authorities created under the Patriot Act following the September 11 attacks.
DeFi Protocol Compliance: The draft explicitly establishes the concept of a “distributed ledger application layer” and requires Treasury to clarify sanctions and anti-money laundering obligations for frontends operating in the United States. This provision extends surveillance requirements to non-custodial protocols, potentially requiring developers and protocol controllers to comply with Bank Secrecy Act obligations if they retain meaningful control over functionality or user access.
Galaxy noted that while the draft preserves the right to self-custody, clarifies money transmitter definitions, and protects developers, the tension lies in how the bill addresses illicit finance. The firm argued that the surveillance provisions could overshadow these industry wins.
3. The Tokenized Equity Ban
Armstrong also flagged what he characterized as a “de facto ban on tokenized equities”; on-chain versions of stocks and other real-world assets. This provision directly threatens Coinbase’s publicly stated plans to expand into tokenized securities as part of its 2026 “Everything Exchange” strategy. The draft language would effectively prohibit these products, which many in the industry view as a critical bridge between traditional finance and blockchain technology.
4. Political Fault Lines and Ethics Controversies
Beyond the technical provisions, political tensions complicated the bill’s prospects. Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego told reporters he was supposed to meet with Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, but that Witt was a no-show, leading Gallego to say he could not vote for the bill at that point.
Ethics requirements remained a major sticking point, as lawmakers sought to restrict senior government officials from personally profiting off the crypto industry, but the Trump White House reportedly turned away those proposals, which could have targeted the president’s family’s financial interests. Chairman Scott responded that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Ethics Committee rather than the Banking Committee.
The stablecoin rewards controversy also created fissures within the Republican caucus. People familiar with the negotiations indicated that Scott could not even count on full support from his own party members, as Wall Street bankers successfully convinced lawmakers from both parties that traditional banking faced an existential threat from crypto yield products.
5. Industry Response: Divided but Determined
The crypto industry’s response to Coinbase’s withdrawal revealed fractures within a sector that has spent years and millions in campaign contributions pushing for regulatory clarity. While Coinbase took a hard line, other major players signaled continued support for advancing legislation in 2026.
“The Digital Chamber strongly supports advancing market structure legislation and remains committed to seeing a bill signed by President Trump this year”, the crypto advocacy group stated. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse posted on social media that his company remains “at the table” and will “continue to move forward with fair debate,” expressing optimism that issues could be resolved through the markup process.
However, Wall Street analysts at TD Cowen warned that Armstrong’s decision likely derails the legislation in the current Congress, describing the outcome as “negative for crypto and positive for banks”. The TD Cowen analysis noted that the market structure bill would have served as a vehicle for additional financial reforms, including potential credit card interest rate caps and interchange fee regulation, all of which are now unlikely to advance.
6. What Comes Next
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott issued a statement saying, “I’ve spoken with leaders across the crypto industry, the financial sector, and my Democratic and Republican colleagues, and everyone remains at the table working in good faith”. However, Scott acknowledged the postponement as addressing “unfinished business,” and no new date has been set for the committee markup.
The legislative path forward remains complex. The Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, had already postponed its own markup of related legislation until late January. Both committees must pass their respective portions before the bills can be merged and sent to the full Senate for a vote. Any final legislation would need to attract at least 60 votes to clear the Senate and would then need to be reconciled with the House’s version before reaching President Trump’s desk.
White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks urged the industry to use the delay productively, stating that passage of market structure legislation “remains as close as it’s ever been” and encouraging stakeholders to “use this pause to resolve any remaining differences.”
Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger characterized the delay as “a moment of recalibration, not an end point,” arguing that on complex issues like digital asset market structure, such pauses can be a healthy part of policymaking, allowing time for additional deliberation and refinement.
7. The Verdict: A Line in the Sand
The collapse of the scheduled vote represents a fundamental shift in the power dynamics between the crypto industry and Washington policymakers. For years, cryptocurrency companies pleaded for regulatory legitimacy, willing to accept almost any framework that would provide legal certainty. That era appears to have ended.
Armstrong’s public withdrawal of support and the Senate Banking Committee’s swift cancellation of the markup in response demonstrates that major industry players now have sufficient leverage to reject legislation they view as harmful, even at the cost of prolonged regulatory uncertainty. The message to lawmakers is clear: the industry will not trade its core values of privacy, decentralized finance, and user sovereignty for a rubber stamp from Congress.
Whether this proves to be a tactical victory or a strategic miscalculation remains to be seen. Critics argue that rejecting imperfect legislation could leave the industry in regulatory limbo for years, potentially through multiple presidential terms. Historical precedent suggests caution; the full implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms took nearly a decade after passage.
Supporters of Coinbase’s stance counter that accepting the Senate draft would have locked in provisions that could have strangled innovation and established dangerous precedents for government surveillance of financial transactions. Better to fight for a workable framework, they argue, than to accept a “Trojan horse” bill that offers clarity in exchange for control.
Disclaimer: This content is for educational and reference purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Digital asset investments carry high risk. Please evaluate carefully and assume full responsibility for your own decisions.
Join MEXC and Get up to $10,000 Bonus!
Sign Up
