In the past week, the cryptocurrency regulatory landscape in the United States has been turbulent. On January 15, the #CLARITYAct was suddenly put on hold as it approached a critical juncture, leading many to believe that the regulatory framework, which seemed close to being finalized, was once again up in the air.

Interestingly, the reason for the bill's obstruction is the emerging internal divisions within the industry surrounding core issues such as stablecoins, DeFi, and RWA tokenization.

This article will start with this delay, outlining where CLARITY currently stands and why it has gradually shifted from being a 'problem-solving bill' to a discussion about the future direction of cryptocurrency.

1. What happened?
Originally regarded as the 'breakthrough' legislation for U.S. crypto regulation, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (referred to as CLARITY), suddenly hit the brakes in January 2026.

Just days before it was scheduled for submission to the Senate Banking Committee on January 15, the bill was urgently withdrawn, postponing the review until late January or even later.
The surface reason was the public opposition from Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, who bluntly stated that the current version of CLARITY is 'worse than having no legislation at all.'
However, if we take a broader perspective, it becomes clear that this was not a spontaneous emotional intervention, but a concentrated eruption of a long-brewing structural conflict.

2. Why is the market paying close attention to CLARITY?
CLARITY is not an ordinary regulatory bill.

For the past few years, the United States has failed to provide a clear answer to a core question:
Who exactly regulates crypto assets? What rules are used for regulation?

CLARITY is seen as the closest legislative attempt to address this issue to date, with goals that include:
Clarifying the regulatory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC

Providing a federal compliance framework for crypto exchanges, issuers, and DeFi protocols

Ending the long-standing reliance on 'enforcement instead of legislation' gray areas

This is also why it passed the House with a high vote of 294–134 in July 2025, viewed as a rare bipartisan consensus in the crypto industry.
At that time, market expectations were:

After the stablecoin bill (GENIUS Act), CLARITY would become the real 'foundation project' for U.S. crypto regulation.

3. Where does the bill currently stand?
Procedurally, CLARITY is not 'dead', but it has clearly entered a state of stagnation.

Senate process:
It must be approved separately by the Banking Committee (SEC side) and the Agriculture Committee (CFTC side)
The Agriculture Committee has postponed the review until January 27
The Banking Committee then chose to follow suit with a last-minute delay

Policy agency evaluation:
The current probability of passage has been downgraded to 50–60%
If the midterm election politics overlap with the legislative schedule, the final implementation time could be pushed to 2027

But what truly brings CLARITY to a standstill is not the timetable, but the content itself.

4. The real issue with CLARITY: it touches on the 'directional choices' of crypto
The controversy surrounding CLARITY is not about the textual details but revolves around several fundamental issues.

1. Stablecoin yields: direct conflict between the banking system and crypto finance

The current draft imposes near prohibitive restrictions on the 'passive yields' of stablecoins, allowing only incentives related to active behaviors.

The banking system's position:
Yield-generating stablecoins could siphon off $1–1.5 trillion in bank deposits, threatening financial stability and local banking systems.
The reaction from the crypto industry:
This is seen as a typical case of regulatory capture, using legal means to eliminate competition.
It not only undermines the core values of DeFi but may also shake the dollar's competitiveness in the on-chain financial system.
This clause became the direct reason for Coinbase's public opposition.

2. RWA and tokenized securities: nominally open, but substantial barriers

The compliance requirements for tokenized stocks, bonds, and other real-world assets (RWA) under CLARITY are considered so high that they approach 'de facto prohibitions'.

Industry concerns:
The U.S. could miss out on the dominance of next-generation capital market infrastructure as a result.

Regulatory concerns:
There are worries that tokenization may circumvent securities laws, bringing systemic and investor protection risks.

3. DeFi, AML, and privacy boundaries

The anti-money laundering and reporting obligations targeting DeFi in the bill are deemed overly expansive.
Critics argue that these requirements either force protocols to collect user data on a large scale

or directly push decentralized protocols out of the U.S. market
This is seen as a structural erosion of privacy, self-custody, and permissionless architecture.
4. SEC and CFTC: power boundaries remain unclear

Although CLARITY seeks to clarify regulatory authority, it is still perceived to lean toward the SEC on key definitions such as 'ancillary assets'.

For developers, this means:
Crypto innovation may still be treated as securities issuance by default.

5. Support and opposition: not a value conflict, but a route dispute
The uniqueness of CLARITY lies in the fact that both supporters and opponents claim to be 'responsible for the long-term future of crypto'.
Supporters (pragmatists)
Representatives include a16z, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, and some Republican lawmakers:
Uncertainty is the biggest obstacle to institutional entry
A flawed framework is better than an indefinite gray area
Laws can be amended, but a vacuum cannot be sustained

Opponents (absolutists)
Represented by Coinbase:
Once vague or hostile provisions become law, they are very difficult to reverse
Regulation could be weaponized
Short-term uncertainty may be more controllable than long-term structural harm

From this perspective, blocking CLARITY is not a denial of regulation, but part of a negotiation strategy.

6. CLARITY is no longer just about 'clarifying regulation'

CLARITY was originally intended to end regulatory uncertainty but inadvertently exposed the industry's own divisions.

Institutional path vs. decentralized baseline
Against the backdrop of deep banking interests, the industry's redefinition of the 'compromise boundary' suggests that CLARITY may continue to advance, but it is almost impossible to pass in its current form. Stablecoin yields, DeFi autonomy, and RWA flexibility will be core topics that any compromise solution cannot avoid.
Before this, the real unresolved issue is not the legal text but a more fundamental question: what kind of 'clarity' does the crypto industry truly want?

#BTC #ETH