As the year 2026 approaches, uncertainty grows about whether the cryptocurrency market structure bill will proceed at the beginning of the year or be delayed due to political struggles.
Unresolved issues continue to slow progress, such as how the bill should address stablecoin yield, language regarding conflicts of interest, and the treatment of decentralized finance under federal law.
Path to Senate vote uncertain
The CLARITY Act passed the House of Representatives in July with broad bipartisan support, marking the strongest step toward a federal framework for digital assets.
The bill is now awaiting consideration in the Senate, where the banking and agriculture committees are developing parallel versions of the market structure framework. The Senate's divided jurisdiction adds complexity, as the banking committee oversees securities and the agriculture committee handles commodities.
Both committees have released discussion drafts, but a unified package has yet to take shape. Lawmakers still need to reconcile their differences before either committee can send a combined bill to the Senate for consideration.
One major technical contention involves how legislation should address yield-bearing stablecoins.
Banks are pushing for broader yield restrictions.
The GENIUS Act, which was passed earlier this year, prohibits permitted stablecoin issuers from paying holders any interest or yield.
The restriction is, however, narrowly written. It only applies to direct payments from stablecoin issuers for fees and does not clearly cover reward programs, third-party yields, or other digital asset structures.
Banking groups argue that these gaps could allow for workarounds and urge lawmakers to expand the ban in future market structure legislation. They want a broader rule that would cover all forms of yield related to stablecoins.
A few senators appear to be open to this approach, which gives significant weight to the question in negotiations. The expansion would affect how stablecoins compete with traditional bank deposits, which is a key concern for banking lobbyists.
Meanwhile, lawmakers disagree on how a broader framework should address potential conflicts of interest.
Concerns about political influence are growing.
The involvement of U.S. President Donald Trump and his family members in crypto projects has sparked increased scrutiny over potential ethical concerns.
Some lawmakers, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, argue that new conflict of interest language is necessary to ensure that political figures and their relatives are prevented from engaging in activities that could raise questions about their influence on digital asset policy.
Such measures would help protect legislation from the perception of political interference.
However, the proposed language is not included in the CLARITY Act passed by the House of Representatives, nor was it in previous Senate drafts. Its absence has become a topic of discussion, and the disagreement contributes to ongoing hesitation.
At the same time, questions remain about how the bill should address decentralized finance (DeFi).
DeFi regulation remains unresolved.
The market structure law is designed for centralized intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and custodians. However, the rapid growth of DeFi raises questions that the Senate has not fully addressed.
Current drafts primarily focus on custody operations. However, some traditional financial institutions advocate for broader definitions that would classify developers, validators, and other non-custodial actors as regulated intermediaries.
Such an approach would significantly expand federal oversight and alter the legal environment for open-source development.
Until lawmakers define that boundary, the bill is unlikely to progress. The DeFi issue is one of the key factors shaping when the market structure law may ultimately move forward in 2026.