Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal said the US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is “moving toward” a markup in the Senate Banking Committee, with a potential path to a full floor vote if lawmakers resolve disputes over stablecoin yield and set a hearing date.
Speaking in a Wednesday interview on Fox Business, Grewal said senators are close to agreeing on key elements of the crypto market structure bill, though debate over stablecoin yield remains ongoing. “I think we’re very close to a deal,” he said.
The issue of whether stablecoin issuers or platforms should be allowed to offer yield or similar incentives has become one of the final major sticking points, delaying a markup in the Senate Banking Committee and leaving broader federal rules for digital asset oversight unresolved.
US banks have advocated for restrictions, arguing that such incentives could pull deposits away from traditional institutions and disrupt the financial system. Grewal rejected those concerns, saying there is no evidence to support fears of deposit flight.
The US House of Representatives passed the CLARITY Act on July 17, 2025. In January, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott postponed a planned markup, which has yet to be rescheduled.
Trump blames banks for delays
Donald Trump last month accused banks of stalling progress on crypto legislation, claiming they were blocking efforts due to disagreements over stablecoin yield provisions. “The Banks should not be trying to undercut The Genius Act, or hold The Clarity Act hostage,” he wrote.
He was later reported to have met privately with Brian Armstrong just hours before making the statement.
In January, Brian Armstrong said Coinbase could not support the market structure bill “as written,” citing draft amendments that would remove stablecoin rewards and allow banks to limit competition.
CLARITY delay could expose crypto to crackdowns
Last week, Peter Van Valkenburgh of Coin Center warned that failing to pass the CLARITY Act could leave the industry exposed to stricter enforcement under a future US administration. He argued that sidelining developer protections in favor of short-term business interests risks creating a regulatory framework driven by political shifts rather than clear legal standards.
“The point of passing CLARITY is not to trust this administration. It is to bind the next one,” he said.
