US Crypto Policy Debate Intensifies as CLARITY Act Support Fractures

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-16Last updated on 2026-01-16

Abstract

Washington's efforts to regulate the crypto market face new uncertainty as the CLARITY Act, a key legislative proposal, encounters significant setbacks. Coinbase withdrew its support, citing concerns over restrictions on tokenized equities, crypto rewards, and expanded government data access. This prompted a pause in the Senate Banking Committee's progress on the bill, though the White House reaffirmed its backing. The debate centers on whether the SEC or CFTC should have primary oversight, with exchanges favoring the CFTC's commodity-based approach. Industry leaders are divided, with some supporting the bill as a necessary step forward despite its flaws, while others warn it could stifle innovation. Stablecoin regulation and consumer protection remain contentious issues.

Washington’s long-running effort to bring regulatory clarity to the U.S. crypto market has entered a more uncertain phase. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act, was expected to move closer to a Senate vote this week.

Instead, a sudden withdrawal of support from Coinbase and a last-minute pause by Senate leadership have exposed deep divisions within the industry and among lawmakers. While the White House insists the bill is still on track, the debate over how digital assets should be regulated is becoming more fragmented.

BTC's price records some gains on the daily chart. Source: BTCUSD on Tradingview

Coinbase Withdrawal Triggers Legislative Pause

The immediate turning point came when Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong announced that the company could no longer support the current draft of the CLARITY Act.

Armstrong argued that the bill would be worse than the existing regulatory uncertainty, citing concerns over limits on tokenized equities, restrictions on crypto rewards, and expanded government access to financial data.

Shortly after, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott introduced a brief pause in the bill’s progress, cancelling a scheduled markup.

Scott described the delay as procedural rather than political, stating that negotiations were ongoing and bipartisan talks continued. A new markup date has been set for January 27, once updated bill language is released.

Despite the setback, White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks reiterated that the administration still backs the legislation. He said the pause should be used to resolve remaining issues and push forward a framework that allows innovation while strengthening oversight.

Industry Split Over SEC and CFTC Roles

At the core of the dispute is the division of regulatory authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as outlined in the CLARITY Act.

Crypto exchanges generally favor the CFTC’s approach, which treats many digital assets as commodities. The SEC, by contrast, applies securities laws that impose stricter compliance requirements.

Critics argue the bill shifts too much power to the SEC, particularly over tokenized equities and certain crypto products. Coinbase has warned that the proposed rules could effectively block the development of on-chain stock trading and limit user reward programs.

Other industry leaders, including executives from Ripple, a16z, and Kraken, have taken a more cautious stance. While acknowledging flaws in the draft, they argue that passing some form of market structure legislation is better than leaving the sector in regulatory limbo.

Banks, Stablecoins, and the Broader Stakes

Another contentious issue is stablecoin regulation. The CLARITY Act would make it difficult for crypto platforms to offer yield or interest-like rewards on stablecoin holdings. Banks support these restrictions, saying they protect financial stability.

Lawmakers also point to past failures, such as the FTX collapse, as evidence that clearer rules are needed to protect consumers and national security. However, frustration is growing behind the scenes.

Senate sources indicate that some committee members were dissatisfied with Coinbase’s timing, perceiving the withdrawal as disruptive to months of negotiations.

Cover image from ChatGPT, BTCUSD chart from Tradingview

Related Questions

QWhat was the immediate trigger that caused a pause in the progress of the CLARITY Act?

AThe immediate trigger was Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong's announcement that the company could no longer support the current draft of the bill.

QAccording to Coinbase, what are some specific concerns they have with the proposed CLARITY Act?

ACoinbase cited concerns over limits on tokenized equities, restrictions on crypto rewards, and expanded government access to financial data.

QWhich two U.S. regulatory agencies are at the core of the dispute over the CLARITY Act?

AThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are at the core of the dispute.

QWhat is the new date set for the markup of the CLARITY Act after the pause?

AA new markup date has been set for January 27, once updated bill language is released.

QBesides Coinbase, which other industry leaders were mentioned as taking a more cautious stance on the bill?

AExecutives from Ripple, a16z, and Kraken were mentioned as taking a more cautious stance, arguing that passing some form of legislation is better than regulatory limbo.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片