#CLARITYActStalled

#CLARITY法案推进受阻
The current situation around the CLARITY Act is better understood as a financial system restructuring conflict rather than a standard legislative dispute. On the surface, it appears to be a disagreement over stablecoin rewards and regulatory scope, but underneath it is a deeper struggle over how future money infrastructure will be controlled, distributed, and monetized.

The banking sector opposition is not just political lobbying in the traditional sense. It is rooted in a structural concern about deposit displacement risk. In the traditional banking system, deposits are the foundation of credit creation. Banks rely on low-cost retail deposits to issue loans, generate interest spreads, and maintain liquidity ratios. If stablecoin systems begin to offer competitive yield-like incentives or frictionless value storage mechanisms, even a small percentage shift in deposits could alter the economics of banking profitability. This is why the “member rewards clause” is being treated as a systemic issue rather than a product feature. It represents the possibility of programmable money competing directly with regulated deposit accounts.

However, the political system in the U.S. is not operating in isolation from global competition. Policymakers are increasingly aware that digital asset infrastructure is not a domestic experiment anymore—it is part of a global race involving multiple jurisdictions. Financial hubs in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe are already advancing regulatory frameworks for tokenized assets and stablecoins. This external pressure creates a counterweight against strict domestic restrictions. In other words, even if banking institutions push for tighter control, geopolitical financial competition pushes in the opposite direction toward controlled innovation.

This tension creates a three-layer negotiation dynamic:

First layer: Banking institutions prioritizing liquidity stability and deposit retention
Second layer: Crypto and fintech ecosystems pushing for innovation and capital efficiency
Third layer: Government regulators trying to preserve systemic control while maintaining global competitiveness

The CLARITY Act sits exactly at the intersection of these three forces.

From a legislative behavior standpoint, outright rejection of the bill becomes increasingly unlikely because it would signal regulatory stagnation in a rapidly evolving financial environment. At the same time, full approval in its original form is also unlikely because it would introduce uncontrolled competitive pressure on traditional banking infrastructure. This creates a narrow outcome corridor: conditional passage with structural amendments.

These amendments are expected to focus on several key areas:

One, stablecoin reward mechanisms will likely be restricted or reclassified to avoid direct equivalence with bank interest products.
Two, issuance requirements will become more centralized, favoring regulated entities over decentralized structures.
Three, compliance and reporting frameworks will be strengthened to ensure traceability of capital flows.
Four, integration with traditional financial oversight systems will be increased, effectively making stablecoin systems extensions of regulated finance rather than independent alternatives.

From a market structure perspective, this kind of regulatory outcome does not eliminate crypto growth potential, but it reshapes the velocity and composition of that growth. Instead of explosive, unregulated expansion, the market transitions into a phase of institutional absorption. This means liquidity inflows become more stable but also more conditional on compliance alignment.

For traditional finance, the long-term impact is more complex than simple loss of deposits. While banks may experience competitive pressure on retail savings, they also gain opportunities to integrate digital settlement infrastructure and participate in tokenized asset markets. In many cases, large financial institutions are already preparing hybrid models where stablecoin rails are embedded into existing banking systems rather than operating as external competitors.

For crypto markets, the most important effect of stablecoin regulation is not the immediate price impact, but the removal of legal uncertainty premium. Markets tend to reprice aggressively when uncertainty shifts from “regulatory ambiguity” to “defined constraints.” This typically results in increased institutional participation, reduced compliance friction for large capital, and improved liquidity depth across major trading pairs.

However, there is an important nuance that is often missed in market narratives. Regulatory clarity does not automatically equal bullish acceleration. It often creates a two-phase response: an initial repricing driven by reduced uncertainty, followed by a normalization phase where speculative excess is reduced due to stricter compliance boundaries.

From a strategic policy perspective, the U.S. government is attempting to achieve a delicate equilibrium. It does not want to suppress innovation to the point where capital and talent migrate offshore. At the same time, it does not want to allow fully permissionless financial systems to operate without integration into existing oversight frameworks. The CLARITY Act is essentially an attempt to define this equilibrium point in law.

My structured assessment is as follows:

The probability of passage remains higher than rejection, but the final form will be significantly moderated compared to early expectations. The most realistic outcome is a regulated integration model, where stablecoins become legally recognized financial instruments but operate under constraints that preserve banking system stability.

In terms of market interpretation, the key mistake participants may make is assuming that passage equals unrestricted expansion. In reality, passage will likely represent the beginning of a controlled phase rather than a liberalized phase.

The deeper implication is that the global financial system is gradually shifting from account-based money to programmable money, but this transition is not linear. It is being negotiated in real time between legacy institutions and emerging digital frameworks.

The CLARITY Act is one of the earliest formal attempts to define that boundary.