Written by: ChandlerZ, Foresight News

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee originally planned to review and vote on the cryptocurrency market structure bill, the Clarity Act, by the end of April, but intense lobbying from banking trade groups is pushing this timeline into May. Committee Chairman Tim Scott stated on April 14 to Fox Business that the review may not be completed in April and listed three unresolved issues: the stablecoin earnings provision, DeFi-related provisions, and ensuring the support of all Republican Senators on the committee.

According to procedures, if the Banking Committee plans to vote the week of April 27, a review notice would need to be issued no later than April 25. However, on April 22, the committee's attention will first be occupied by the confirmation hearing of Kevin Warsh, the Federal Reserve Chair nominee, appointed by Trump. Senator Bernie Moreno explicitly warned that if the bill does not reach a full Senate vote before May, the midterm election cycle will render significant legislation politically untouchable, and digital asset regulation may have to wait until the next Congress.

A Compromise Negotiated Over Two and a Half Months, Banking Sector's Last-Minute Reversal

The core controversy of the Clarity Act centers on whether issuers of stablecoins can pay earnings to holders. Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democrat Angela Alsobrooks reached a principled compromise in late March after over two months of negotiation, prohibiting passive earning, meaning that simply holding stablecoins would not yield interest, but allowing rewards based on on-chain activities such as payments and transfers. The cryptocurrency industry largely accepted this proposal, at least without public opposition.

According to Crypto In America, the compromise text was not publicly released but was shown to a select group of representatives from the banking and crypto industries. Initially vague in their statements after the first meeting, the banks' opposition intensified sharply after the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on April 8 downplaying the impact of stablecoin earnings on the banking system.

The North Carolina Bankers Association began organizing member banks to call Tillis's office in concentrated pressure, with Punchbowl News reporting that banking trade organizations have expanded their lobbying efforts beyond Tillis and Alsobrooks to other members of the Banking Committee. Tillis himself showed a listening stance to the banks' demands and last week proposed a "crypto palooza" plan, inviting bankers and cryptocurrency experts to meet face-to-face with senators to resolve disagreements, but this would further delay the process. On April 17, Tillis announced that the compromise text would not be released for the time being, citing uncertain review timing.

Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the White House's crypto committee, publicly criticized the continued lobbying from banks on X, stating, "It’s hard to interpret further lobbying as anything beyond greed or ignorance." An informed source told Eleanor Terrett, "Small banks across the country are not being well served by Washington's trade associations. The banking lobby can either accept this outcome, limiting deposit flight, or they can screw it up themselves at a time when victory is imminent, then face a status quo situation."

White House Report vs. Banking Sector: A 0.02% Discrepancy

The core data at the center of the dispute comes from a 21-page analysis report released by the White House CEA on April 8.

The CEA concluded that a complete ban on stablecoin earnings would only increase total bank loans by approximately $2.1 billion, equivalent to 0.02% of the total outstanding loans. For community banks, deemed most vulnerable to deposit flight, the additional loan capacity was about $500 million, an increase of 0.026%. Meanwhile, the ban would impose a net cost of about $800 million on consumers. The subtext of the report suggests that the banking sector claims stablecoin earnings threaten deposit bases, but the data does not support this claim.

According to Crypto in America reporter Eleanor Terrett, the American Bankers Association (ABA) publicly criticized the recent stablecoin report from the White House CEA, arguing that the direction of the report's analysis is flawed and overlooks more fundamental policy risks. The ABA warned that allowing stablecoin earnings could lead to significant deposit flight from community banks, increasing financing costs and tightening local credit supply.

The ABA pointed out that the CEA report focuses on the effects of banning earnings, thus creating a false sense of security and avoiding more destructive scenarios, such as the rapid scaling of interest-bearing payment stablecoins. The ABA had previously warned that stablecoin earnings could lead to up to $6.6 trillion in deposit flight.

Two Other Hurdles Beyond Stablecoin Earnings

While stablecoin earnings are the most prominent point of contention in the Clarity Act, they are not the only hurdle; the other two issues listed by Tim Scott are equally challenging.

First, the DeFi provisions remain contentious. Democratic senators cited recent frequent DeFi security incidents, including the approximately $290 million stolen from Kelp DAO in April and multiple large-scale attacks on Drift Protocol totaling $285 million, demanding stricter anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance provisions in the bill, especially targeting highly anonymous decentralized protocols. Tim Scott believes the disagreements over the DeFi provisions can be settled within two weeks, but this judgment is based on the premise that the stablecoin earnings issue is no longer delayed.

Second, the ethics provisions. Democrats are pushing to include provisions in the bill that restrict high-ranking government officials from profiting personally from cryptocurrency assets during their tenure, which is particularly sensitive in light of ongoing controversies surrounding the Trump family-affiliated World Liberty Financial (WLFI) project. Republicans, on the other hand, worry that the scope of some proposed restrictions is too broad and may be used as a political tool.

May is a Hard Deadline

Before the Clarity Act can be signed into law, it must overcome five hurdles, including review and voting by the Banking Committee, a full Senate vote requiring 60 votes, coordination with the Agriculture Committee version, coordination with the House version passed in July 2025, and presidential signing. Each step requires time, while the political pressure from the midterm elections is compressing this window.

As the first comprehensive legislative effort regarding cryptocurrency market structure in the U.S., the core task of the Clarity Act is to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC regarding digital assets, providing a clear legal framework for token classification, exchange registration, and custodian compliance. The House version was passed in July 2025, and the pace at which the Senate version progresses in the Banking Committee will directly determine whether this law can be implemented in the current Congress. Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse had previously anticipated that the bill would be reviewed by April, but later pushed this expectation to the end of May.

This week, after the Warsh hearing concludes, whether the Banking Committee will issue a review notice before Friday will determine if the Clarity Act enters review in late April or slips into the second week of May after the Senate recess. If delays continue, the time remaining for the Senate to complete the five legislative hurdles before the election cycle will be minimal.

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。