Congress still hasn't reached an agreement on digital asset regulations: Debate over stablecoin performance blocks consensus

The CLARITY Act remains stalled as Congress debates the performance of stablecoins, pitting the crypto industry against the traditional banking sector.

The House of Representatives is keeping the digital asset industry in suspense after failing to reach a consensus on the CLARITY ActAn ambitious regulatory framework that seeks to bring order to the crypto market has stalled on the technical definition of stablecoin returns. Despite pressure from the White House to unblock the legislation this month, The text faces bipartisan resistance and fierce opposition from the traditional banking sector. This further delays legal clarity for investors and technology companies.

The leaders of the Senate Banking Committee are expected to resume talks in the coming days, though the atmosphere in Washington is one of skepticism. Proponents of the regulatory bill have urged all parties to compromise to prevent the United States from losing competitiveness to other markets. However, the gap between those seeking a level playing field for cryptocurrencies and those warning of a systemic risk to bank deposits appears, for now, insurmountable.

The impasse poses a significant challenge for the Trump administration, which has championed cryptocurrency regulation as a key driver of innovation. The lack of agreement not only affects stablecoin issuers but also leaves a number of consumer protections in limbo, protections that depend on the full passage of this legislative package.

Stablecoins under scrutiny: the struggle between innovation and banking power

The debate surrounding stablecoins has gained momentum in Washington, highlighting a growing tension between the traditional financial system and the digital economy. It all revolves around a seemingly technical question with crucial implications for the future of digital currency: whether or not regulated stablecoins should offer returns to their users.

Within the crypto sector, organizations such as the Digital Chamber and the Blockchain Association maintain that Preventing interest payments would render these currencies incomplete instruments and limit innovationTheir argument rests on the fact that digital infrastructure can offer efficiency and tangible benefits to the consumer, and that restricting it would mean hindering technological progress that could make the financial system more competitive.

On the other side, the big Wall Street banks have increased their presence in Congress to prevent that possibility. They fear that if stablecoins start generating interest, Millions of dollars are leaving savings accounts and moving into digital wallets.This would reduce the deposit base used to finance mortgage loans and small business loans. This warning has resonated strongly with several lawmakers, who are concerned about the impact that overly permissive regulation could have on the stability of the traditional financial system.

Ultimately, the debate is not just about technology or competitiveness, but about the control of value and the role that banks and new digital platforms will play in the circulation of money in the future.

Brendan PedersenPunchbowl News reported that those who participated in the recent meeting between representatives of the crypto and banking sectors at the White House described an encounter marked by notable differences in postures. Delegates from the crypto industry sought to discuss concrete solutions regarding stablecoin performance and implementation mechanisms. In contrast, banking representatives avoided going into detail and refused to discuss specific measures.

For her part, the journalist Eleanor Terrett, presenter of Crypto in AmericaHe offered an even more critical account of what happened. Citing sources close to the matter, he commented that the encounter seemed “The meme of communism with two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner”This is a metaphor for the imbalance of interests at the table. Terret pointed out that there was no significant participation from retail players or self-custody advocates, while large corporations discussed how to divide up the crypto market.

Journalist Anadio According to two sources with direct knowledge of the plans, the Democratic senators intend to meet behind closed doors today to analyze regulations for the cryptocurrency market structure. He emphasized that this will be the first discussion at this level since the Republican banking committee decided to postpone its legislative session last month.

The CLARITY Act is stalled between political ethics and regulatory uncertainty

In addition to economic tensions, a political component has complicated negotiations: the ethics and transparency clauses. Various sectors of the Senate have conditioned their support for the CLARITY Act on the inclusion of strict anti-corruption provisionsThese measures seek to prevent high-ranking government officials—including those with alleged ties to companies such as World Liberty Financial— directly benefit from the policies they are helping to draft.

This ethical approach, coupled with the requirement that the CFTC have full bipartisan integration before assuming new powers, has slowed the progress of the bill that was already approved by the House of Representatives last year. 

Meanwhile, the private sector is watching with concern as regulatory uncertainty drains investment to more predictable jurisdictions, leaving US lawmakers in a race against time before the election cycle fully dominates the congressional agenda.

In the current context, the path to a definitive regulatory framework remains blocked by a mutual distrust that goes beyond technical issues. While the meetings at the White House have served to bring the stakeholders to the table, the lack of concrete commitments from banking associations suggests that the process of "rolling up our sleeves and getting to work" will take longer than anticipated. 

For citizens and businesses working with new financial tools, this stagnation translates into an uncertain scenario that hinders innovation and delays the integration of technologies with transformative potential. All this, despite the potential offered by technology, which Congress has yet to fully embrace.