Coinbase Flags Concerns Over CLARITY Bill

TheNewsCryptoОпубликовано 2026-01-12Обновлено 2026-01-12

Введение

Coinbase has threatened to withdraw its support for the upcoming CLARITY Act, a key U.S. crypto bill, if it restricts the ability of platforms to offer rewards on stablecoin holdings beyond basic disclosure rules. The exchange argues such limitations would harm its business and competition in the stablecoin market, particularly affecting rewards programs for assets like USD Coin. This stance follows the earlier GENIUS Act, which prohibited issuers from paying yields but allowed third-party platforms to offer rewards. Coinbase claims restricting platform-based rewards would undermine previous compromises and unfairly advantage traditional banks. The issue arises as policymakers work on broader crypto market reforms, with some senators seeking a compromise that would permit rewards only for chartered banks or trust companies.

As per the reports, it is speculated that Coinbase might withdraw its support for Washington’s upcoming major crypto bill. The firm is setting its boundaries as Congress moves closer to finalising its upcoming major crypto bill named the CLARITY Act.

In a report shared by Bloomberg on January 11, a warning surfaced as policymakers got ready to put up an extensive digital-asset market structure bill in the Senate later this week. Coinbase revealed that it may pull out its support for the CLARITY Act if it limits stablecoin rewards beyond fundamental disclosure rules.

As per the exchange, the issue directly hits its business and the competition in the stablecoin market, and the people close to the company’s thinking think alike. The ability to offer rewards on stablecoin balances, mainly USD Coin, remains at stake.

Association with the other Act

The debate trails through the GENIUS Act in July, which made the first federal framework for stablecoin issuers. That law bars creators from paying interest or yield associated only with holding stablecoins, but it does not obstruct third-party platforms from offering rewards to users.

Companies associated with crypto say that distinction was intentional. The officials from Coinbase state that prohibiting platform-based rewards would revoke compromises so far settled in the GENIUS Act and shift the field in favour of banks.

The firm has also mounted rewards as a way to make the role of the dollar in global digital finance more robust, mainly as different countries explore interest-bearing virtual currencies. Political pressure surrounding the bill is also increasing. In the election cycle of 2023-24, the crypto industry was leading in being the largest corporate political spender, in which Coinbase was a prominent donor.

The threat to withdraw support has weight as policymakers attempt to maintain momentum in the back of broader market structure reforms. Still, the final outcome is not clear. Some senators are looking for a middle ground that would permit rewards only for companies holding bank or trust charters.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Bitcoin Holds Near $92K as Asia Rises Ahead of US CPI Data

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhy might Coinbase withdraw its support for the CLARITY Act?

ACoinbase may withdraw its support if the CLARITY Act limits stablecoin rewards beyond fundamental disclosure rules, as this directly impacts its business and competition in the stablecoin market.

QWhat is the main concern for Coinbase regarding the CLARITY Act?

AThe main concern is the potential restriction on the ability to offer rewards on stablecoin balances, particularly for USD Coin, which is a key part of its business model.

QHow does the GENIUS Act relate to the current debate over the CLARITY Act?

AThe GENIUS Act, passed in July, established the first federal framework for stablecoin issuers. It prohibits issuers from paying interest directly but allows third-party platforms to offer rewards. The current debate centers on whether the CLARITY Act will uphold this distinction.

QWhat is the crypto industry's argument for allowing platform-based stablecoin rewards?

AThe industry argues that prohibiting platform-based rewards would undo compromises made in the GENIUS Act and unfairly shift the competitive landscape in favor of traditional banks.

QWhat is one potential legislative compromise being considered regarding stablecoin rewards?

ASome senators are seeking a middle ground that would permit rewards only for companies that hold a bank or trust charter, attempting to balance innovation with regulatory oversight.

Похожее

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

The article "iQiyi Is Too Impatient" discusses the controversy surrounding the Chinese streaming platform IQiyi's recent announcement of an "AI Actor Library" during its 2026 World Conference. IQiyi claimed over 100 actors, including well-known names like Zhang Ruoyun and Yu Hewei, had joined the initiative. CEO Gong Yu suggested AI could enable actors to "star in 14 dramas a year instead of 4" and that "live-action filming might become a world cultural heritage." The announcement quickly sparked backlash. Multiple actors named in the list issued urgent statements denying they had signed any AI-related authorization agreements. This forced IQiyi to clarify that inclusion in the library only indicated a willingness to *consider* AI projects, with separate negotiations required for any specific role. The incident, which trended on social media with hashtags like "IQiyi is crazy," is presented as a sign of the company's growing desperation. Facing intense competition from short-video platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou, as well as Bilibili and Xiaohongshu, IQiyi's financial performance has weakened, with revenues declining for two consecutive years. The author argues that IQiyi is "too impatient" to tell a compelling AI story to reassure the market, especially as it pursues a listing on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The piece concludes by outlining three key "AI questions" IQiyi must answer: defining its role as a tool provider versus a content creator, balancing the "coldness" of AI with the human element audiences desire, and properly managing the interests of platforms, actors, and viewers. The core dilemma is that while AI can reduce costs and increase efficiency, it risks creating homogenized, formulaic content and devaluing human performers.

marsbit48 мин. назад

Jensen Huang Publicly Challenges Google and Amazon, Is the Chip Business Entirely Sustained by Anthropic?

In a candid interview, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang challenged competitors like Google and Amazon, admitted past strategic errors, and criticized U.S. export controls on AI chips. He framed Nvidia’s role as turning “electricity in, tokens out,” emphasizing the complexity and value of AI inference. Huang dismissed rival custom chips like Google’s TPU and Amazon’s Trainium as inflexible and niche, claiming their growth relies heavily on clients like Anthropic. He also acknowledged missing early investment opportunities in OpenAI and Anthropic. On China, Huang warned that export restrictions risk pushing the country toward self-sufficiency and could cost U.S. leadership in AI. Finally, he explained Nvidia’s acquisition of Groq as a move to serve premium, low-latency token markets. Throughout, Huang emphasized ecosystem trust and Nvidia’s central role in global AI infrastructure.

marsbit54 мин. назад

Jensen Huang Publicly Challenges Google and Amazon, Is the Chip Business Entirely Sustained by Anthropic?

marsbit54 мин. назад

ARK's SpaceX IPO Investment Guide: $1.75 Trillion Valuation, 95x Price-to-Sales Ratio, Where Is the Money Going?

ARK Invest, a major investor in SpaceX, provides an analysis following SpaceX's confidential IPO filing on April 1, 2026, targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and up to $75 billion in funding for a Nasdaq listing around June 2026. This would be the largest IPO in history. The valuation implies a price-to-sales ratio of ~95x based on ~$18.5B in projected 2025 revenue. ARK argues this reflects future potential, not current reality. Key drivers include Starlink, with over 10M users and $20B+ in 2026 revenue, launch services which have reduced costs by ~95% since 2008, and the strategic merger with xAI in February 2026, enabling vertically integrated AI and orbital computing. ARK’s investment thesis is based on SpaceX's proven execution of ambitious goals, like reusable rockets and global satellite internet. The firm notes that significant value creation often occurs pre-IPO, and its Venture Fund offers exposure to SpaceX’s earlier private stages. Post-IPO, the fund will manage the position per standard lock-up and rebalancing processes, maintaining flexibility to reinvest in other private innovations. The analysis is based on public estimates and ARK research; the S-1 filing is not yet public. This is not investment advice.

marsbit55 мин. назад

ARK's SpaceX IPO Investment Guide: $1.75 Trillion Valuation, 95x Price-to-Sales Ratio, Where Is the Money Going?

marsbit55 мин. назад

Stablecoin Hype Overblown? Moody’s Says Banks Aren’t In Danger

The article discusses the legislative stalemate in the US over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act), which aims to regulate crypto assets. A key point of contention is whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay interest, with crypto companies opposing a ban and banks supporting it. Moody's analyst Abhi Srivastava states that, for now, stablecoins do not pose a significant threat to traditional banks due to existing efficient payment systems and the current prohibition on yield-bearing stablecoins. This limits their appeal for pulling deposits from banks at scale. However, with the stablecoin market cap exceeding $300 billion and growth in tokenized assets, banks could face future pressure from deposit outflows. The crypto industry warns that failure to pass the bill could lead to stricter regulatory crackdowns. Negotiations continue with little progress, despite both sides desiring a resolution.

bitcoinist1 ч. назад

Stablecoin Hype Overblown? Moody’s Says Banks Aren’t In Danger

bitcoinist1 ч. назад

Not a Price Hike, but a Supply Cut? Oil Prices Have Crossed the Tipping Point

The global oil market has passed a critical point, shifting the focus from price increases to potential physical supply shortages. The core issue is a time mismatch: even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens, shipping disruptions have already caused significant delays, which will continue to deplete onshore crude inventories for weeks. Refinery behavior acts as an amplifier. Reduced runs in Asia and Europe don’t reflect weaker demand but instead shrink product inventories, raising fuel prices and refining margins, which in turn encourages higher runs—creating a self-reinforcing cycle. If the Strait remains closed beyond April, traditional pricing models may fail. The market could face an unprecedented physical shortfall of 11-13 million barrels per day—roughly four times historical disruption levels. In such a scenario, price becomes an inadequate balancing tool. The only way to rebalance the market would be policy-driven demand destruction, similar to COVID-era lockdowns. Current prices around $95/barrel are insufficient to balance the market. Key signals to watch include inventory levels, policy announcements, and the pace of involuntary demand contraction. Geopolitically, the situation appears likely to worsen before improving, with little room for compromise between the US and Iran.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Not a Price Hike, but a Supply Cut? Oil Prices Have Crossed the Tipping Point