Crypto CLARITY Act Faces 100-Plus Amendments As Stablecoin, Banking Fight Intensifies

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-05-13Last updated on 2026-05-13

Abstract

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee's CLARITY Act faces over 100 proposed amendments ahead of a key markup vote, intensifying debates on stablecoins, banking, and crypto regulation. Key points of contention include stablecoin rewards, with proposed bans on yield for idle balances and bank-backed amendments seeking stricter rules. Senator Elizabeth Warren filed over 40 amendments, including one to block crypto firms from Federal Reserve accounts, while another from Senator Jack Reed aims to prohibit using crypto for tax payments, countering industry goals for broader adoption. The bill, positioned as a consumer protection measure, also proposes treating crypto exchanges as financial institutions under anti-money laundering laws and creating exemptions for small fundraising. Banking industry groups are actively lobbying for tighter restrictions. Despite some Democratic leadership support, the bill's path remains uncertain due to ongoing negotiations on ethics and conflict-of-interest provisions, with critics warning of risks to investors and financial stability.

The US Senate Banking Committee’s crypto market structure push is running into a dense wall of amendments ahead of Thursday’s markup, with lawmakers filing more than 100 proposed changes to the CLARITY Act. The amendment rush puts stablecoin rewards, crypto firms’ access to the Federal Reserve system and even the use of digital assets for tax payments at the center of Washington’s latest fight over crypto regulation.

According to Politico, committee members submitted more than 100 amendments before the markup vote. Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren alone filed more than 40 amendments, including one that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing master accounts to crypto companies. Terrett also flagged an amendment from Senator Jack Reed that would “prohibit crypto from being used as legal tender, for example, to pay taxes.”

That language would cut directly against one of the industry’s longer-running policy goals: expanding digital assets beyond investment and trading into payments, settlement and public-sector use cases. Terrett noted the contrast with prior pro-Bitcoin tax-payment proposals, writing that Representative Warren Davidson had introduced a bill last year “to do that very thing” with BTC.

Crypto Bill Enters High-Stakes Senate Markup

The latest clash comes after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Senator Cynthia Lummis and Senator Thom Tillis released new market structure text that will serve as the basis for the committee markup. The committee said the text reflects negotiations with Democrats and input from lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement, financial institutions, innovators and consumer advocates. Scott framed the bill as a consumer-protection and national-competitiveness measure.

“Over the past year, we have listened, negotiated, and strengthened this bill because families, small businesses, investors, and innovators all benefit from clear rules of the road,” Scott said. “This bill reflects serious, good-faith work across the Committee and delivers the certainty, safeguards, and accountability Americans deserve.”

The most immediate fault line remains stablecoin rewards. The Senate text would ban rewards on idle stablecoin balances that closely resemble bank deposits, while allowing rewards tied to transaction-based activity, such as stablecoin payments. The SEC, CFTC and Treasury Department would be tasked with issuing joint rules to implement that provision.

Banks are not satisfied. Brendan Pedersen reported that Reed and Senator Tina Smith filed an amendment that would incorporate bank-requested changes to stablecoin yield restrictions, forcing lawmakers to choose between the crypto and banking industries. The amendment would target rewards “substantially similar” to deposit interest, a phrase that goes to the core of the banking lobby’s argument: that crypto platforms should not be allowed to compete with deposits through yield-like incentives while avoiding bank-style regulation.

Terrett reported separately that American Bankers Association members had sent more than 8,000 letters to Senate offices urging lawmakers to revise the stablecoin-yield compromise. The ABA has argued that the current language does not adequately close what it calls a loophole allowing exchanges and other digital asset service providers to bypass the GENIUS Act’s ban on interest or yield on payment stablecoins.

The bill also reaches well beyond stablecoins. Digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers would be treated as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, bringing them into anti-money-laundering, customer-identification and due-diligence regimes. The text would also allow crypto companies to raise up to $50 million annually, and up to $200 million total, without SEC registration, while clarifying that tokenized securities remain subject to securities law.

The political path is still fragile. Terrett said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer appeared engaged in a Democratic member meeting and eager for members to reach a “yes” on the CLARITY Act, but stressed that ethics negotiations needed to move further before Thursday’s markup. Warren, the committee’s top Democrat, has been pressing that issue hard, saying the bill “puts investors, our national security and our entire financial system at risk” and would “turbocharge Donald Trump’s crypto corruption” without stronger conflict-of-interest provisions.

At press time, the total crypto market cap stood at $2.67 trillion.

Total crypto market cap faces the 100-week EMA, 1-week chart | Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the CLARITY Act, and what key issues are highlighted by the large number of amendments it faces?

AThe CLARITY Act is a crypto market structure bill under consideration by the US Senate Banking Committee. The large number of amendments (over 100) highlights intense debate over key issues including: banning or restricting stablecoin rewards that resemble bank deposit interest, crypto firms' access to Federal Reserve master accounts, and whether digital assets can be used for payments like tax settlements.

QWhich specific amendment proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren is mentioned, and what would it prevent?

AThe article mentions that Senator Elizabeth Warren filed an amendment that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing master accounts to crypto companies. Master accounts are crucial for financial institutions to access Fed payment and settlement services directly.

QAccording to the article, what is the core argument of the banking lobby regarding stablecoin rewards?

AThe banking lobby's core argument is that crypto platforms should not be allowed to offer rewards 'substantially similar' to bank deposit interest while avoiding the stringent regulations that banks face. They view this as an unfair competitive loophole.

QHow does the current Senate bill text propose to handle stablecoin rewards?

AThe Senate bill text proposes to ban rewards on idle stablecoin balances that closely resemble bank deposits. However, it would allow rewards tied to transaction-based activities, such as making stablecoin payments. Regulatory agencies would be tasked with creating joint rules to implement this provision.

QBeyond stablecoins, what are two other significant regulatory changes proposed in the bill's text?

ATwo other significant changes are: 1) Treating digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, subjecting them to AML, KYC, and due diligence rules. 2) Allowing crypto companies to raise up to $50 million annually (up to $200M total) without SEC registration, while clarifying that tokenized securities remain under securities law.

Related Reads

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit8m ago

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit8m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit21m ago

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit21m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片