Crypto CLARITY Act Faces 100-Plus Amendments As Stablecoin, Banking Fight Intensifies

bitcoinist2026-05-13 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-05-13 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The U.S. Senate Banking Committee's CLARITY Act faces over 100 proposed amendments ahead of a key markup vote, intensifying debates on stablecoins, banking, and crypto regulation. Key points of contention include stablecoin rewards, with proposed bans on yield for idle balances and bank-backed amendments seeking stricter rules. Senator Elizabeth Warren filed over 40 amendments, including one to block crypto firms from Federal Reserve accounts, while another from Senator Jack Reed aims to prohibit using crypto for tax payments, countering industry goals for broader adoption. The bill, positioned as a consumer protection measure, also proposes treating crypto exchanges as financial institutions under anti-money laundering laws and creating exemptions for small fundraising. Banking industry groups are actively lobbying for tighter restrictions. Despite some Democratic leadership support, the bill's path remains uncertain due to ongoing negotiations on ethics and conflict-of-interest provisions, with critics warning of risks to investors and financial stability.

The US Senate Banking Committee’s crypto market structure push is running into a dense wall of amendments ahead of Thursday’s markup, with lawmakers filing more than 100 proposed changes to the CLARITY Act. The amendment rush puts stablecoin rewards, crypto firms’ access to the Federal Reserve system and even the use of digital assets for tax payments at the center of Washington’s latest fight over crypto regulation.

According to Politico, committee members submitted more than 100 amendments before the markup vote. Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren alone filed more than 40 amendments, including one that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing master accounts to crypto companies. Terrett also flagged an amendment from Senator Jack Reed that would “prohibit crypto from being used as legal tender, for example, to pay taxes.”

That language would cut directly against one of the industry’s longer-running policy goals: expanding digital assets beyond investment and trading into payments, settlement and public-sector use cases. Terrett noted the contrast with prior pro-Bitcoin tax-payment proposals, writing that Representative Warren Davidson had introduced a bill last year “to do that very thing” with BTC.

Crypto Bill Enters High-Stakes Senate Markup

The latest clash comes after Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Senator Cynthia Lummis and Senator Thom Tillis released new market structure text that will serve as the basis for the committee markup. The committee said the text reflects negotiations with Democrats and input from lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement, financial institutions, innovators and consumer advocates. Scott framed the bill as a consumer-protection and national-competitiveness measure.

“Over the past year, we have listened, negotiated, and strengthened this bill because families, small businesses, investors, and innovators all benefit from clear rules of the road,” Scott said. “This bill reflects serious, good-faith work across the Committee and delivers the certainty, safeguards, and accountability Americans deserve.”

The most immediate fault line remains stablecoin rewards. The Senate text would ban rewards on idle stablecoin balances that closely resemble bank deposits, while allowing rewards tied to transaction-based activity, such as stablecoin payments. The SEC, CFTC and Treasury Department would be tasked with issuing joint rules to implement that provision.

Banks are not satisfied. Brendan Pedersen reported that Reed and Senator Tina Smith filed an amendment that would incorporate bank-requested changes to stablecoin yield restrictions, forcing lawmakers to choose between the crypto and banking industries. The amendment would target rewards “substantially similar” to deposit interest, a phrase that goes to the core of the banking lobby’s argument: that crypto platforms should not be allowed to compete with deposits through yield-like incentives while avoiding bank-style regulation.

Terrett reported separately that American Bankers Association members had sent more than 8,000 letters to Senate offices urging lawmakers to revise the stablecoin-yield compromise. The ABA has argued that the current language does not adequately close what it calls a loophole allowing exchanges and other digital asset service providers to bypass the GENIUS Act’s ban on interest or yield on payment stablecoins.

The bill also reaches well beyond stablecoins. Digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers would be treated as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, bringing them into anti-money-laundering, customer-identification and due-diligence regimes. The text would also allow crypto companies to raise up to $50 million annually, and up to $200 million total, without SEC registration, while clarifying that tokenized securities remain subject to securities law.

The political path is still fragile. Terrett said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer appeared engaged in a Democratic member meeting and eager for members to reach a “yes” on the CLARITY Act, but stressed that ethics negotiations needed to move further before Thursday’s markup. Warren, the committee’s top Democrat, has been pressing that issue hard, saying the bill “puts investors, our national security and our entire financial system at risk” and would “turbocharge Donald Trump’s crypto corruption” without stronger conflict-of-interest provisions.

At press time, the total crypto market cap stood at $2.67 trillion.

Total crypto market cap faces the 100-week EMA, 1-week chart | Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the CLARITY Act, and what key issues are highlighted by the large number of amendments it faces?

AThe CLARITY Act is a crypto market structure bill under consideration by the US Senate Banking Committee. The large number of amendments (over 100) highlights intense debate over key issues including: banning or restricting stablecoin rewards that resemble bank deposit interest, crypto firms' access to Federal Reserve master accounts, and whether digital assets can be used for payments like tax settlements.

QWhich specific amendment proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren is mentioned, and what would it prevent?

AThe article mentions that Senator Elizabeth Warren filed an amendment that would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing master accounts to crypto companies. Master accounts are crucial for financial institutions to access Fed payment and settlement services directly.

QAccording to the article, what is the core argument of the banking lobby regarding stablecoin rewards?

AThe banking lobby's core argument is that crypto platforms should not be allowed to offer rewards 'substantially similar' to bank deposit interest while avoiding the stringent regulations that banks face. They view this as an unfair competitive loophole.

QHow does the current Senate bill text propose to handle stablecoin rewards?

AThe Senate bill text proposes to ban rewards on idle stablecoin balances that closely resemble bank deposits. However, it would allow rewards tied to transaction-based activities, such as making stablecoin payments. Regulatory agencies would be tasked with creating joint rules to implement this provision.

QBeyond stablecoins, what are two other significant regulatory changes proposed in the bill's text?

ATwo other significant changes are: 1) Treating digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, subjecting them to AML, KYC, and due diligence rules. 2) Allowing crypto companies to raise up to $50 million annually (up to $200M total) without SEC registration, while clarifying that tokenized securities remain under securities law.

İlgili Okumalar

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

**Daily Tech & Markets Roundup: AI Advances, Market Turmoil, and Geopolitical Tensions** **AI / LLMs**: Anthropic's internal report on AI self-improvement sparked serious discussions about Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI). Meanwhile, debate continues on AI coding tools after Claude was accused of introducing bugs into the rsync codebase. In positive news, DeepSeek V4 Flash impressed in local deployment tests, and GitHub Copilot now supports custom endpoints for local models. A surprising research turn suggests removing chain-of-thought prompting can sometimes improve LLM performance. **Crypto / Web3**: Bitcoin plunged below $60,000, with its RSI hitting levels last seen during the COVID-19 crash, driven by strong U.S. jobs data reviving interest rate hike fears. Discussions highlight Ethereum DeFi's continued lack of a smooth consumer payment layer. **Chips / Hardware**: Chip stocks suffered a massive sell-off, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index posting its worst single-day drop in six years, erasing over a trillion dollars in value. Marvell, Micron, AMD, and Intel were among the biggest losers. **Tech Companies**: A leaked Microsoft document revealing goals to make Copilot "addictive" drew criticism. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman left Microsoft's board to focus full-time on his AI agent startup, Manus. Google was revealed to be paying SpaceX $920 million monthly for AI training compute. **Markets & Macro**: A blowout U.S. jobs report (172k vs. 80k expected) crushed hopes for near-term rate cuts, sending Treasury yields soaring and triggering a broad market sell-off. CEOs from Kraft, McDonald's, and Whirlpool simultaneously warned U.S. consumers are exhausting their savings. **Geopolitics**: U.S.-Iran tensions escalated with missile/drone interceptions and U.S. strikes on Iranian radar sites, keeping the critical Strait of Hormuz largely closed since late February and posing ongoing oil supply risks. **The Bottom Line**: The strong jobs data acted as a single trigger for correlated sell-offs across equities, crypto, and chips. Underlying the volatility is a stark contradiction between robust employment data and warnings of consumer weakness, alongside geopolitical risks that could reignite inflation, leaving markets to price in a fraught macro outlook with no clear "soft landing" path.

marsbit49 dk önce

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

marsbit49 dk önce

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

After a year building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, and Coinbase, the author shares a sobering analysis of the current state of Agent payments. The core finding is a stark lack of genuine, immediate demand across most envisioned use cases. The article breaks down four key market segments: 1. **Agent-to-Merchant (Consumer Shopping):** For most product categories (e.g., clothing, electronics), conversational AI shopping is a step backwards from visual e-commerce interfaces. While agents excel at understanding needs, they can't replace side-by-side product comparison. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," not driven by current customer demand. Potential exists for high-frequency, low-decision purchases (like food delivery) or navigating complex store UIs, but these require massive B2C distribution channels dominated by giants like Amazon. 2. **Agent-to-API (Developer Services):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing relationships for APIs (compute, data). Prepaid balances solve micro-payment issues for low transaction volumes. A deeper structural problem is that major SaaS vendors' business models rely on enterprise contracts, resisting granular pay-per-call pricing. While protocols like MPP and x402 serve the long tail of niche services, this market is small and developers are historically low-willingness-to-pay. 3. **Agent-to-Agent:** This remains largely theoretical with minimal transaction volume. While it represents a long-term bet on a fundamentally new transaction infrastructure (sub-second, micro-penny to million-dollar, multi-party settlements), it does not constitute a present market. 4. **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors established, regulated institutions. The "real problem" is not moving money between agents, but the broader challenge of **coordination**—orchestrating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is just one component of settlement, which is itself part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination layer will subsume payment, not the other way around. While well-funded incumbents build defensively for a long-term future, startups must find where the market is today—which, for the author's team, lies outside these four categories in an area of real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit1 saat önce

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

marsbit1 saat önce

It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments

**Title: It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments** Over the past year, I've worked on infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, and numerous startups. The findings reveal a stark reality: genuine, widespread demand for Agent-based payments does not yet exist. **Key Observations:** * **Agent-to-Merchant (Shopping):** The user experience for AI shopping often falls short, especially for visual product discovery. While AI excels at understanding needs, conversational interfaces can't yet replace browsing and comparing multiple products visually. Current merchant interest is largely defensive ("Agent Engine Optimization") for a future that hasn't arrived. High-frequency, low-friction purchases (like food delivery) are potential fits, but lack open APIs and face high AI inference costs. Simpler, more affordable, or cross-language interactions for complex UIs are a niche opportunity but require massive consumer distribution to scale. * **Agent-to-API (Developer Tools):** Developer payment needs for APIs (computing, data, models) are already met through subscriptions and prepaid credits. The core challenge is not payment friction but supplier economics: most large SaaS providers prefer enterprise contracts over micropayments for API calls. Protocols like MPP and x402 suit the long-tail of smaller services but cater to a developer market historically reluctant to pay for these tools. Major infrastructure needs at the top of the stack are already being addressed. * **Agent-to-Agent (Machine Commerce):** This is a long-term vision with almost no current transaction volume. While a future with high-speed, high-frequency, multi-party machine-to-machine transactions would require novel infrastructure, it remains theoretical. The market is not here yet. * **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with clear, present demand. Financial professionals and DeFi users already pay for tools, and AI augmentation is a natural evolution. Autonomous AI agents can enable entirely new financial strategies. However, competition is fierce from established, regulated incumbents who can more easily layer AI onto their existing products. **The Core Insight:** Companies, especially giants with long time horizons, are building defensively for a potential future of mass machine commerce. For them, early investment is a low-cost hedge. For startups, the current market reality is different. The primary challenge isn't just moving money between agents (payments). The larger, unsolved problem is **orchestration** – coordinating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and then settling. Payment is just a part of settlement, which is just a part of orchestration. Companies that solve the orchestration problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. After a year of building, we see the real, growing, and underserved market opportunity lies in this broader domain of orchestration.

链捕手1 saat önce

It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments

链捕手1 saat önce

Claude Opus 4.8 Finds a $4.5 Billion Bug: The AI Era is Mass-Producing Hackers

A researcher discovered a critical "infinite mint" vulnerability in the Zcash cryptocurrency's Orchard protocol using Claude Opus 4.8, leading to a swift fix but also a 50% market drop, erasing billions in value. This incident highlights a new era where powerful, accessible AI models are dramatically lowering the barrier to finding software vulnerabilities. Previously, the security community feared specialized models like Claude Mythos Preview, capable of finding decades-old zero-day exploits. The Zcash case, however, involved a publicly available, general-purpose model. This shift makes advanced security auditing—and attack capabilities—accessible to far more people, not just experts. The mass democratization of vulnerability discovery brings a dual challenge: a flood of low-quality, AI-generated false reports that overwhelm maintainers, and the real, rapid uncovering of deep, dangerous bugs. Open-source projects, often understaffed and unfunded, are particularly vulnerable to this "attention DDoS." The article cites examples like curl shutting down its bug bounty program due to the unsustainable workload. Our perceived digital safety has often been luck, relying on the high cost and effort required to find deeply hidden flaws in complex systems, as seen with historical vulnerabilities like Heartbleed or Baron Samedit. AI changes this cost structure, effectively "mass-producing flashlights" to illuminate every corner of our codebase. While large companies operate extensive security chains involving external white-hat hackers and massive defensive operations, the global cybersecurity workforce faces a severe shortage, especially of experienced personnel capable of analyzing complex threats and coordinating fixes. The core dilemma emerges: AI makes *finding* bugs cheap and scalable, but *fixing* them remains a slow, expensive, and human-intensive process. The article concludes that AI won't destroy the internet but acts as a bright light, revealing that our digital existence is not inherently secure but is precariously maintained by ongoing human effort. The true cost in the AI era may not be discovery, but whether there will be enough people left willing and able to do the hard work of repair.

marsbit2 saat önce

Claude Opus 4.8 Finds a $4.5 Billion Bug: The AI Era is Mass-Producing Hackers

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片