What’s Next For The Crypto Market Structure Bill? Key Dates And Turning Points Ahead

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-03-05Last updated on 2026-03-05

Abstract

The future of the CLARITY Act, also known as the crypto market structure bill, remains uncertain after the March 1 deadline passed without a breakthrough. Despite concerns, negotiations between the banking industry and crypto representatives are reportedly continuing behind the scenes. A key sticking point is the disagreement over stablecoin yields. While there is broad agreement that stablecoin balances should not earn interest, crypto firms are attempting to create alternative mechanisms—such as membership programs, rewards, or staking—that could effectively replicate annual percentage yields (APY). Banking representatives are pushing for any such activity to be clearly defined as "active," "bona fide," and "time-locked." Attention is now turning to the Senate Banking Committee, which is considering potential markup dates in mid-to-late March. This would provide additional time to address unresolved issues, including DeFi provisions and ethics concerns, before a possible vote.

The future of the CLARITY Act — widely referred to as the crypto market structure bill — remains uncertain after the March 1 deadline set by the White House passed without the expected breakthrough between the banking industry and crypto representatives.

Key Hurdle In Crypto Bill Negotiations

Despite concerns that talks may be stalling, reporting from Crypto In America suggests discussions are continuing behind the scenes. Eleanor Terrett cited a banking industry source with direct knowledge of the negotiations who pushed back on the idea that the process is unraveling.

According to that source, both sides are still actively reviewing and contributing to draft legislative language and were never strictly bound to the March 1 timeline. “Overindexing on March 1 is a mistake,” the source said.

Still, tensions remain. Another banking source acknowledged that while there is broad agreement in principle that stablecoin balances should not earn interest, disagreements persist over how that principle should be implemented.

According to this source, crypto companies are attempting to structure alternative mechanisms — such as membership programs, rewards systems, or staking arrangements — that could effectively replicate annual percentage yields (APY) on stablecoin holdings. The source said:

There’s agreement in-principle that stablecoin balances shouldn’t earn interest, but crypto firms are still trying to backdoor APY on balances through membership programs, rewards, and staking. I think that’s what’s holding up the deal right now.

Bank representatives are reportedly pushing for any lending or staking activity to be clearly defined as “active,” “bona fide,” and “time-locked,” meaning returns must be tied strictly to genuine investment performance rather than resembling passive interest.

Senate Banking Eyes March Markup

On Capitol Hill, attention is turning to procedural milestones. The Senate Banking Committee is reportedly considering potential markup dates in mid-to-late March.

Such a timeline would give negotiators several additional weeks to address unresolved matters, including decentralized finance (DeFi) provisions and ethics-related concerns, before the bill advances to a possible vote.

Amanda Tuminelli, executive director of the DeFi Education Fund, said DeFi discussions have recently taken a backseat to the yield dispute but described the broader process as progressing. She further noted:

I think overall things are moving, and it feels like issues are being closed out, but DeFi has taken a backseat to the yield conversation. We’re waiting for Senate Banking to announce the next markup date and updated text, so I think everyone is anxiously awaiting to see what the next draft looks like.

For now, the path forward hinges on resolving the stablecoin yield dispute and finalizing legislative language that can satisfy enough stakeholders to move ahead.

The daily chart shows the total market cap valuation’s drop toward $2.3 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main reason the crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) did not meet the March 1 deadline?

AThe main reason is a disagreement over how to implement the principle that stablecoin balances should not earn interest. Crypto companies are attempting to create alternative mechanisms like membership programs or staking to effectively replicate yields, which is causing a hold-up.

QAccording to the article, what are banking representatives insisting on regarding lending or staking activities?

ABanking representatives are pushing for any lending or staking activity to be clearly defined as 'active,' 'bona fide,' and 'time-locked.' This means returns must be tied strictly to genuine investment performance rather than resembling passive interest.

QWhat is the next key procedural milestone for the Senate Banking Committee regarding this bill?

AThe Senate Banking Committee is reportedly considering potential markup dates in mid-to-late March, which would give negotiators several additional weeks to address unresolved issues.

QWhich specific issue has recently taken a backseat in the negotiations, according to Amanda Tuminelli?

AAccording to Amanda Tuminelli, discussions concerning decentralized finance (DeFi) provisions have recently taken a backseat to the yield dispute over stablecoins.

QWhat is the primary condition for the bill to move forward, as stated in the article's conclusion?

AThe path forward hinges on resolving the stablecoin yield dispute and finalizing legislative language that can satisfy enough stakeholders to move ahead.

Related Reads

Rubin Ultra Makes Major Cuts, Even Nvidia Can't Handle Memory Price Hikes?

NVIDIA's Rubin Ultra, the top-tier variant of the newly announced Rubin AI accelerators, has reportedly seen significant specification downgrades, according to an industry report from SemiAnalysis. Initially designed with four compute dies (4-die), the Rubin Ultra is now said to be reduced to a 2-die design. Key changes highlighted in the report include: * **No increase in peak theoretical compute performance**, remaining at 35 PFLOPs like the standard Rubin. * **Severe reduction in memory capacity** to 192GB using 8-Hi HBM stacks, which is less than the standard Rubin's 288GB using 12-Hi stacks. * **Negligible memory bandwidth improvement** of only 1 TB/s. * **Slightly higher chip-level power consumption**. * The **primary upgrade is a massive increase in scale-up interconnect capacity**, supporting connections for up to 576 GPUs via NVLink, compared to 72 for the standard Rubin. The report suggests the redesign is primarily a cost-optimization move driven by the sharp rise in HBM (High-Bandwidth Memory) prices. By reducing the expensive HBM content and shifting investment towards enhanced system-scale networking, NVIDIA aims to maintain the platform's value for large-scale AI training clusters while managing soaring material costs. The news reportedly triggered a sell-off in South Korean memory stocks, with SK Hynix and Samsung shares falling around 8%, as markets grew concerned that NVIDIA—a major HBM buyer—might be reducing its reliance on high-capacity memory, potentially capping future pricing power for memory makers.

Odaily星球日报11m ago

Rubin Ultra Makes Major Cuts, Even Nvidia Can't Handle Memory Price Hikes?

Odaily星球日报11m ago

Can Generative Models Finally Be Trained End-to-End? The Core Is a For Loop

This article introduces a novel training paradigm for generative models called Explorative Modeling (XM), which enables true end-to-end training. Traditionally, powerful generative models like autoregressive and diffusion models are not trained end-to-end. They are trained to predict a single small step but require iterative multi-step sampling for inference. This "exposure bias" leads to error accumulation and limits performance. The core challenge XM addresses is "mode blurring." In generative tasks, a single input (e.g., "generate a dog") corresponds to many valid outputs (multiple modes). Standard training objectives like reconstruction loss force the model to average these modes, producing unrealistic, blurry outputs. To avoid this, existing models break generation into many small, almost deterministic steps, sacrificing end-to-end training. XM tackles this by restructuring the training loop itself. Its key insight is to amplify "generative expressivity." For each training input, instead of generating one sample, the model generates K candidate outputs. Only the candidate closest to the real data is used for computing the loss and updating the model via backpropagation. This simple "best-of-K" mechanism is implemented as a short for-loop. By exploring multiple possibilities, the model learns to distribute its guesses across different modes rather than collapsing to their uninformative average. The paper demonstrates that "exploration" acts as a new, powerful scaling axis. Gains from XM increase with model size, data scale, and compute. Experiments show improvements in FID scores for image generation and significant efficiency gains, sometimes outperforming larger models without exploration. When pushed to the limit, XM enables fully single-step, end-to-end generative models. In robotics tasks, an "Explorative Policy" matched the performance of a 100-step Diffusion Policy with a single forward pass, drastically improving inference speed. While the best-of-K concept is not entirely new, the authors' contribution lies in formally understanding it as a direct method to boost generative expressivity without fragmenting the generation process. This work suggests that as models scale, enhancing exploration during training may become crucial for overcoming fundamental performance bottlenecks.

marsbit1h ago

Can Generative Models Finally Be Trained End-to-End? The Core Is a For Loop

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片