Single Swing Vote May Determine Fate Of The CLARITY Act In Banking Committee

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-03-07Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-03-07

Introduzione

Despite strong White House backing, the CLARITY Act, a major crypto market structure bill, remains stalled in the Senate Banking Committee due to political divisions. A key obstacle is the ongoing dispute over stablecoin rewards, with Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) emerging as the pivotal swing vote. His proposed amendments to limit these rewards previously caused Coinbase to withdraw its support. While the bill could pass along party lines if Democrats oppose it, Tillis' support is critical for advancement. Negotiations are now focused on finding minimal acceptable language rather than a full resolution. Other contentious issues, like DeFi, have been sidelined. There is cautious optimism for progress within three weeks, potentially allowing a committee vote by late March.

Despite strong backing from President Donald Trump and ongoing discussions at the White House, the CLARITY Act — the Senate’s long-debated crypto market structure bill — remains stalled as political divisions persist and the midterm elections draw closer.

The legislation has been slowed by continued resistance from Senate Democrats and the banking industry, both of which have raised objections to key provisions, particularly those related to stablecoin rewards.

Banking Committee Markup Hinges On Tillis

According to a Thursday update from journalist Eleanor Terrett of Crypto In America, one Republican senator may now hold decisive influence over the CLARITY Act’s next steps in the Senate Banking Committee.

Terrett reported that Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina appears to be central to resolving the ongoing dispute over stablecoin yield and reward programs.

Tillis had previously emerged as a potential holdout in January when the Senate Banking Committee was preparing to mark up the bill. Amendments introduced by Tillis sought to narrow the scope of rewards that crypto firms could offer on stablecoins.

US-based cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase later cited those proposed changes as one of several reasons it withdrew its support for the legislation at the time, underscoring how sensitive the yield issue has become for the industry.

While the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its portion of the CLARITY Act framework in January, the Banking Committee has yet to complete its markup — a necessary step before the bill can advance further.

Late-March CLARITY Act Markup

Terrett notes that a dramatic breakthrough between banks and crypto firms may be unlikely. Instead of a comprehensive resolution that fully satisfies both sides, the strategy now appears to focus on drafting language that represents the minimum each party can accept.

Even if Democrats ultimately oppose the bill during the next markup session, the CLARITY Act could theoretically pass out of committee along party lines. In that scenario, however, Tillis’ support would be pivotal if no Democrats cross the aisle. His position could determine whether the legislation advances or remains stuck.

At the same time, stakeholders involved in negotiations say the focus on stablecoin rewards has “taken a lot of oxygen out of the room,” leaving other contentious areas — particularly those related to decentralized finance — sidelined.

One DeFi executive engaged in the talks suggested that Senate Democrats are now scrambling to revisit those outstanding matters. Ethics provisions are also expected to remain a point of sensitivity for some Democratic members, adding another layer of complexity to an already delicate negotiation surrounding the CLARITY Act.

As the calendar advances, timing is becoming increasingly critical. One crypto trade executive said contingency options are being considered in case the Banking Committee’s markup slips further into the year.

Still, there is cautious optimism that meaningful progress on stablecoin yield and related provisions could be achieved within the next three weeks. If that happens, lawmakers may be able to reschedule the markup for late March.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $2.32 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main reason the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the Senate Banking Committee?

AThe CLARITY Act remains stalled due to continued resistance from Senate Democrats and the banking industry, particularly over objections to key provisions related to stablecoin rewards.

QWhich Republican senator is considered pivotal for the CLARITY Act's advancement in the Senate Banking Committee?

ASenator Thom Tillis of North Carolina is considered pivotal, as his support could determine whether the legislation advances or remains stuck, especially if no Democrats cross the aisle.

QWhy did Coinbase withdraw its support for the CLARITY Act earlier this year?

ACoinbase withdrew its support due to amendments proposed by Senator Thom Tillis that sought to narrow the scope of rewards crypto firms could offer on stablecoins.

QWhat strategy is being employed to move the CLARITY Act forward amid disagreements between banks and crypto firms?

AThe strategy focuses on drafting language that represents the minimum each party can accept, rather than seeking a comprehensive resolution that fully satisfies both sides.

QBy when do stakeholders hope to achieve meaningful progress on stablecoin provisions to potentially reschedule the markup?

AStakeholders are cautiously optimistic that meaningful progress on stablecoin yield and related provisions could be achieved within the next three weeks, potentially allowing a rescheduling of the markup for late March.

Letture associate

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit59 min fa

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit59 min fa

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手59 min fa

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手59 min fa

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit3 h fa

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit3 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片