CLARITY Act News: Coinbase CEO Responds To Dimon While JPMorgan Sees Low Odds Of 2026 Passage

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-06-04Last updated on 2026-06-04

Abstract

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong responded to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon's criticism of the CLARITY Act, a crypto regulation bill, calling Dimon's personal remarks "kind of sad" while expressing personal respect. Armstrong argued the bill would benefit traditional banks by providing a clearer regulatory framework and also help crypto companies, urging a focus on passing the legislation. Dimon had stated banks would not accept the current bill and predicted continued resistance from traditional finance. Meanwhile, JPMorgan analysts indicated the odds of the bill passing in 2026 are low, citing time constraints, the approaching midterm elections, and legislative hurdles like stablecoin yield debates.

In an interview with Politico, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong pushed back on JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon’s criticism of the CLARITY Act. At the same time, the bank’s analysts said that the odds of the bill clearing Congress and reaching President Trump’s desk this year are becoming increasingly slim.

CLARITY Act Would Be ‘Good For The Banks’

Armstrong told Politico that it was “kind of sad” to hear Dimon call him “full of shit.” He said he has “a lot of respect for Jamie Dimon,” adding that while they disagree on the crypto bill, he still respects the banker personally.

Coinbase CEO said he believes the regulatory framework in the CLARITY Act would ultimately be beneficial for traditional banks, and he was surprised by Dimon’s tone. He suggested that the level of intensity in public commentary can blur nuance, saying, “When people communicate through the media, nuance gets lost.”

Armstrong further argued that the bill could be helpful beyond Wall Street—stating that it would be “great for crypto companies as well.” In his view, the goal should be to move past rigid positions and focus on getting the legislation “over the finish line.”

The exchange comes after NewsBTC reported on Dimon’s comments, in which he said banks “will not accept” the CLARITY Act in its current form.

Dimon also suggested that efforts by crypto supporters were unlikely to build a broad consensus with traditional financial institutions, warning that there would be continued resistance rather than convergence.

He said the act would be fought and added that no one would “bow down” to either Armstrong or crypto-related figures, arguing that someone associated with the lobbying push was spending “hundreds of millions of dollars in Washington” on the legislation.

Midterms Reduce Chances This Year

In the Politico interview, Armstrong said he was “a little perplexed by that,” and reiterated that he believes the CLARITY Act would help the banking sector and create clearer rules for the crypto industry.

Rather than treating the debate as a matter of winning or losing, Armstrong framed it as a test of whether lawmakers can complete the process and finalize the bill.

Nevertheless, when JPMorgan analysts consider the timing of the bill, they conclude that constraints are tightening rather than easing. They argue that it is becoming increasingly difficult to pass and fully approve the crypto bill in time this year, especially with the midterm elections approaching.

The analysts pointed to several factors that could slow progress, including the debate over stablecoin yields and the remaining legislative hurdles, such as the ethics provision related to President Trump’s links to the industry.

The daily chart shows the exchange’s stock, COIN, and its retrace to $163 on Thursday. Source: COIN on TradingView.com

Featured image created with OpenArt; chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main topic of disagreement between Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon?

AThey disagree on the CLARITY Act, a proposed crypto regulatory bill. Armstrong believes it would be beneficial for both crypto companies and traditional banks, while Dimon and JPMorgan are strongly opposed to it in its current form.

QAccording to JPMorgan analysts, why are the chances of the CLARITY Act passing in 2026 becoming slim?

AJPMorgan analysts cite several factors, including the approaching midterm elections, debates over stablecoin yields, and remaining legislative hurdles like the ethics provision related to President Trump's links to the crypto industry.

QHow did Brian Armstrong characterize Jamie Dimon's public criticism of him?

AArmstrong said it was 'kind of sad' to hear Dimon call him 'full of shit.' He expressed respect for Dimon personally but noted that public commentary through media often loses nuance.

QWhat did Jamie Dimon suggest about the efforts of crypto supporters to pass the CLARITY Act?

ADimon suggested that crypto supporters' efforts were unlikely to build a broad consensus with traditional financial institutions. He warned of continued resistance, stating that no one would 'bow down' to crypto figures and that the act would be fought.

QHow does Brian Armstrong frame the debate over the CLARITY Act, according to the article?

AArmstrong frames the debate not as a matter of winning or losing, but as a test of whether lawmakers can complete the legislative process and get the bill 'over the finish line' to create clearer rules for the industry.

Related Reads

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

The article argues that the popular narrative of "AI agent shopping" – equipping AI with a wallet to autonomously handle purchases – is fundamentally flawed and oversimplifies the complexity of shopping. It deconstructs shopping into two core actions: **information retrieval** (standardized, easily automated) and **value judgment** (deeply subjective and human-centric). The narrative mistakenly assumes AI can fully handle both. Value judgment itself has two layers: **evaluation** (assessing options against criteria) and **demand definition** (setting the criteria, weights, and values). The latter is inherently human and dynamic, as preferences are not fixed but constructed during the decision-making process ("constructive preferences"). The real dividing line for automation is not product standardization, but whether the **act of choosing** itself holds experiential value. For mundane purchases (e.g., printer paper), full AI delegation works. For experiential goods (e.g., wine, furniture), the joy of selection is core to consumption, so AI should act as an assistant that narrows options, leaving the final choice to humans. The "AI wallet" concept confuses three separate elements: decision-making, execution, and fund custody. Current payment industry solutions (e.g., from Stripe, Mastercard, Google, Visa) show that limited, scoped payment authorization tokens are sufficient for most consumer scenarios, not full fund custody. The true use case for autonomous AI wallets is in **B2B procurement** and **machine-to-machine (M2M) settlements** for standardized, high-frequency, low-value transactions. The real bottlenecks for AI shopping are not payment technology, but **1) the lack of trusted data sources** (e.g., fake reviews, counterfeit goods) and **2) the impossibility of automating human demand definition**. The conclusion is that the focus should be on safely automating the assessment and filtering process while reserving for humans the rights to define their criteria and enjoy the final act of choice. For experiential goods, the platform's competitive advantage shifts to providing a superior selection experience.

Foresight News18m ago

Why Is AI Agent Shopping Hard to Popularize?

Foresight News18m ago

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

After nine months of being short, prominent crypto trader Doctor Profit has closed all his bearish positions and started buying Bitcoin near $64,000, signaling a complete bullish reversal. He argues that structural market changes—such as impending U.S. regulation (CLARITY Act) and institutional adoption via securities tokenization—are rewriting the traditional four-year cycle script, potentially bringing the market bottom forward from the widely expected September/October timeframe. This view finds some technical support from on-chain analyst gumsays, who notes a bullish divergence on Bitcoin's weekly chart has persisted for 147 days, nearing the 161-day duration seen before the 2022 cycle low. However, cycle researcher Jake Pahor presents a counter-argument based on historical data. Analyzing patterns since 2014, he identifies three common features of past bear market bottoms: a ~12-month duration from peak to trough, a sustained period of extreme fear (with a proprietary risk score below 20), and the price falling below Bitcoin's realized price (~$53,000 currently). The current cycle, only nine months from its October 2025 peak, meets none of these conditions. The debate highlights a market torn between "front-running" a potential early bottom driven by new fundamentals and waiting for confirmation through traditional on-chain and sentiment metrics. While Doctor Profit opts for aggressive buying, Pahor maintains a disciplined, tiered accumulation strategy, continuing weekly buys at current risk levels but reserving larger orders for if more extreme fear emerges.

marsbit37m ago

After Nine Months of Shorting, a Full Turn to Long: Renowned Trader Opens Bitcoin Positions Around 64K, Crypto Market Long-Short Divergence Intensifies

marsbit37m ago

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

Veteran trader's case study: trading the market's "wrong expectations". This trade centered on a textbook "expectation error" after a weak CPI report. While the market initially priced in broad monetary easing (sending Nasdaq to 30,060), the crucial 30-year real yield hit a 20-year high. This signaled a fractured transmission mechanism: short-term rates eased, but long-term funding costs (vital for tech valuations) refused to fall. The trader executed five short positions on the Nasdaq (NQ) as it fell from 30,060 to 28,768. The core methodology: don't just trade the data, but analyze the market's implied causal chain and identify where it breaks. In this case, the chain was: Weak CPI → Policy Easing → Lower Long-Term Funding Costs → NQ Valuation Expansion. The break occurred between policy easing and long-term rates. The "veto variable" – long-term real yields – refused to confirm the bullish narrative. Trades were structured around "fast variables" (price) temporarily repairing while "slow variables" (funding conditions) remained broken. The article outlines a repeatable framework: 1) Map the market's implied causal chain. 2) Identify the veto variable. 3) Observe if it rejects the narrative. 4) Enter when price still follows the old script. 5) Choose the cleanest asset expression (e.g., short NQ, not broad S&P). 6) Define both invalidation and fulfillment exit conditions. The key insight: Alpha often comes not from an information edge, but from a "reaction function edge" – recognizing when the market is applying an outdated causal logic to new data. The critical question: What causal chain is the market's first reaction relying on, and is that chain still valid today?

marsbit1h ago

Senior Trader's Confession: How to Trade Market's False Expectations?

marsbit1h ago

Opinion: The Hedging Relationship Between U.S. Treasuries and Stocks Has Broken Down, and BTC, as a Risk Asset, Is Under Dual Pressure

For the past 20 years, U.S. investors relied on a free insurance policy: when stocks fell, bonds rose, cushioning portfolio losses. This reliable inverse correlation underpinned entire financial strategies. However, this mechanism broke down around 2020 and has not recovered. Currently, the two-month rolling correlation between the S&P 500 and 10-year Treasury yields is at -0.69, its lowest level since 1996, indicating stocks and bonds are moving in sync to an unprecedented degree, eliminating the traditional portfolio shock absorber. The失效 of this hedge is not simply due to lost confidence in U.S. debt. The key driver is the shift from growth-dominated to inflation-dominated market narratives. When growth fears prevail, stocks and bonds move inversely. Since 2022, persistent inflation volatility has been the dominant factor, causing both asset classes to suffer simultaneously from higher inflation expectations. Investors now seek safety without duration risk, favoring cash, dollars, and short-term Treasuries while selling long-duration bonds. Record U.S. deficits, rising net interest payments, and waning foreign demand (e.g., from Japan) are pressuring long-term yields, with the 30-year yield surpassing 5%. This environment places Bitcoin, as a risk asset on the far end of the risk curve, under dual pressure. Higher risk-free rates increase the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like Bitcoin, while falling equities reduce overall risk appetite. Bitcoin's performance has become highly sensitive to macro conditions such as real yields, dollar strength, and financial conditions. While its long-term thesis as a fixed-supply asset outside the sovereign credit system is strengthened by these fiscal trends, the same conditions hurt it in the short term. The return of bonds as a effective hedge requires inflation volatility to subside, growth risks to retake dominance, and the Fed to have room to ease policy. Until then, Bitcoin trades in a market where the deepest asset class no longer absorbs shocks, removing the safety floor for all risk assets, especially those that pay nothing to wait.

marsbit1h ago

Opinion: The Hedging Relationship Between U.S. Treasuries and Stocks Has Broken Down, and BTC, as a Risk Asset, Is Under Dual Pressure

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片