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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-03-05Última atualização em 2026-03-05

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

Coldcard Hardware Wallet Hacked: Losses Mount Due to Vulnerable Seed Generation A critical vulnerability in Coldcard hardware wallets has led to a continued wave of fund thefts. According to Galaxy Research, the total stolen has reached 1,367.05 BTC (approx. $88.6 million) from 4,585 addresses, a significant increase from the initial 594.5 BTC reported on July 30, 2026. Most of the stolen funds remain on the attackers' addresses. The issue is not with the current firmware, which Coinkite has updated, but with seed phrases generated on vulnerable devices between March 2021 and the release of fixed firmware versions. Due to a programmer error, devices switched from using a hardware random number generator to the software-based Yasmarang generator, which was initialized with publicly accessible data like the chip's serial number. This made the seed phrases predictable through offline brute-force attacks, meaning wallets remain at risk until funds are moved to a new wallet generated with the patched firmware. Affected devices include Mk2/Mk3 with firmware 4.0.1–4.1.9 (and up to 5.0.3), Mk4/Mk5 up to version 5.6.0, and Q models up to 1.5.0Q. The only exceptions are seeds created with a high-entropy method like at least 50 independent dice rolls or a strong unique BIP-39 passphrase. All other owners must generate a new seed on the fixed firmware and transfer their assets. A case highlighting the human impact involves a 39-year-old long-term investor who lost 2 BTC (approx. $130,000) in minutes. He had accumulated the Bitcoin over eight years through physical labor, viewing it as a financial lifeline and a retirement plan in a country suffering from hyperinflation. His story underscores that even conservative "buy and hold in cold storage" strategies can be compromised by such underlying technical flaws. From a technical perspective, this incident echoes historical failures where weak random number generators undermined cryptographic security, challenging the assumption that offline storage is automatically foolproof.

cryptonews.ruHá 3h

Bitcoin Withdrawals Continue: 8 Years of Storage in a Coldcard Cold Wallet Ended in Zero

cryptonews.ruHá 3h

Trading

Spot
活动图片