The CLARITY Act divides the US Senate and crypto players

Crypto regulation in the United States seemed to be nearing its goal, but the road is getting longer again. The debates around the CLARITY Act, supposed to provide a clear legal framework for the digital assets market, are coming up against irreconcilable visions. Between the promise of controlled innovation and the fear of excessive control, positions become rigid. In Washington, unity now seems out of reach: it will take time before the legislative fog clears.

When “clarity” turns into a standoff: the battle over the CLARITY Act

Supported by Republican Senator Tim Scott, the CLARITY Act aims to redefine the rules of the game for the crypto industry. Officially, the text aims to protect investors and guarantee national security according to the note from the Senate Banking Committee. For its authors:

This bill replaces uncertainty with clarity, strengthens law enforcement against bad actors, and provides modern protections for customers, investors, and the financial system.

Behind this speech, criticism is mounting. Actors like Galaxy Digital are warning of a possible extension of the surveillance power of the American state over crypto users. The provisions regarding DeFi and stablecoins are divisive: the text prohibits passive returns on stablecoins, while allowing rewards for specific actions, such as payments or loyalty.

For the United States, this project marks a turning point: it aims to integrate crypto into traditional regulation. But it also risks stifling what it claims to save.

Coinbase strikes back: when the voice of the crypto industry breaks

The divide opened the day before the vote. Coinbase, the leading US crypto exchange, abruptly withdrew support for the project. Its CEO, Brian Armstrong, tweeted his disagreement: the text contains “ too many problems » and would represent “ a bad bill “. He says the United States should not ban rewards on stablecoins or undermine the authority of the CFTC.

This withdrawal of weight immediately caused the political agenda to waver. The Senate Banking Committee postponed its vote, revealing the extent of internal dissension. For many, Coinbase's abandonment illustrates the crypto industry's inability to speak with one voice, despite years of lobbying and millions spent on pro-crypto campaigns.

Meanwhile, traditional banks continue to weigh in on the debate, strongly opposing stablecoin yield programs. In their eyes, these products threaten the stability of the financial system and encourage a flight of deposits from the traditional banking network.

United States: when crypto becomes a political weapon

As the text slips, its stakes go beyond simple regulation. The CLARITY Act has become a symbol: that of an America torn between innovation and control. The Republicans, led by Tim Scott, insist on the need to keep crypto innovation on American soil. The Democrats fear a law written by and for the industry.

In the background, another battle is playing out. Former President Donald Trump poses as a “crypto president”, promising a pro-innovation environment and a return of capital to the United States. With the 2026 midterm elections in their sights, each camp is politicizing crypto to attract Web3 entrepreneurs and investors.

Analysts see this as an inevitable development: crypto is no longer a technical subject, but a political lever. Washington is no longer debating just a bill, but the economic model of the future.

CLARITY ACT – The facts to remember

• The text aims to define digital assets as securities or commodities;
• It shares supervision between the SEC and the CFTC;
• The vote was postponed after Coinbase withdrew support;
• The project prohibits passive returns on stablecoins, only allowing usage rewards;
• Banks and crypto platforms are clashing over the future of digital yield.

While the United States gets bogged down in debates, Europe is moving faster. In France, nearly 90 crypto players are under surveillance before the MiCA regulation comes into force. Those who fail to adapt their compliance risk seeing their regulatory future seriously compromised.