Senate negotiations over the Digital Asset Market Structure bill have moved from a debate over policy details to a contest over who will shape the next version of the legislation, following the collapse of an earlier CLARITY Act draft in January. Lawmakers, banks, cryptocurrency companies, law-enforcement officials and trade groups are now seeking influence over a rewrite that would define how federal agencies oversee much of the US digital-asset market.
The expanded drafting process follows a failed attempt to advance the bill through committee, with disagreements extending across decentralized finance, tokenized assets, stablecoin rewards and the division of authority between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission.
Coinbase Chief Executive Brian Armstrong said in a social-media post that he opposed moving the January draft to a committee vote because it left unresolved questions in each of those areas. Armstrong said a revised version later submitted for committee consideration addressed the four concerns he had raised, including provisions affecting decentralized-finance activity and the CFTC’s role.
That apparent progress did not produce a durable agreement. Banks became the first major organized group to challenge revisions associated with the crypto industry’s demands, particularly around stablecoin yield. The dispute prompted a series of smaller White House meetings involving bank executives and cryptocurrency companies, according to the account of the negotiations.
Stablecoin yield has become a central fault line
The dispute over stablecoin yield reflects a larger fight over whether payment stablecoins should function mainly as settlement tools or evolve into products that compete more directly with bank deposits and money-market funds.
Banking groups have pushed for restrictions that would prevent stablecoin issuers or affiliated platforms from offering returns that resemble interest on deposits. Crypto companies have argued that overly broad language could restrict legitimate user rewards, decentralized-finance applications and mechanisms used to distribute blockchain-based returns.
The Bank Policy Institute said it continues to support a lasting federal framework for digital assets while seeking targeted changes to stablecoin-yield provisions. That position places banks in favor of legislation in principle while resisting provisions they believe could shift customer balances from the banking system into digital-dollar products.
Stablecoin policy has gained additional urgency as the sector expands. The total market value of stablecoins exceeded $304 billion in late September 2026, according to the supplied market data. That figure indicates the scale of assets that could be affected by federal rules governing issuance, reserves, redemption rights and the ability to offer rewards to holders.
The market’s size does not establish that users are moving into stablecoins as a defensive response, and it does not determine how Congress will write the bill. It does mean that a narrow provision on yield could carry consequences for issuers, banks, payment companies and decentralized applications serving millions of users.
Law enforcement and ethics provisions add pressure
Law-enforcement officials also raised concerns over provisions intended to protect software developers from being treated as financial intermediaries merely for publishing or maintaining code. Those protections are a priority for parts of the crypto industry, especially after enforcement actions and criminal cases intensified debate over the responsibility of developers behind decentralized protocols.
Law-enforcement agencies have focused on whether broad developer exemptions could make it harder to address illicit-finance risks involving mixers, decentralized exchanges or other tools that can operate without a conventional corporate operator. The next text will need to draw lines between neutral technology providers and parties that actively control, promote or profit from financial activity.
Ethics provisions have become another source of bipartisan pressure. A June filing disclosed that President Donald Trump had $1.4 billion in crypto asset proceeds, according to the supplied account. The disclosure renewed calls from lawmakers for language addressing conflicts of interest connected to digital-asset policymaking.
Senator Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who has worked on crypto policy, had pursued a yield-related compromise with Senator Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat. Tillis also worked with Senator Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, on ethics language, according to the account. Their efforts illustrate how the bill has required coalitions that cross both party and committee lines.
Departures could alter the negotiating balance
Several lawmakers and officials involved in cryptocurrency policy are preparing to leave their current roles, potentially reducing institutional memory as Congress revisits the legislation.
Tillis has said he will not seek a third Senate term and will leave office at the end of the year. Senator Cynthia Lummis, the Wyoming Republican who has led digital-asset work as chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee on digital assets, has also said she will not seek another six-year term.
On the regulatory side, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce’s term ends Friday. Peirce, who has served at the agency since 2018, is expected to return to academia. Her departure would come as the SEC and CFTC face commissioner vacancies, a concern raised by regulatory specialists as Congress considers assigning each agency clearer responsibilities.
Those vacancies matter for the practical implementation of any market-structure law. A statute may allocate authority between agencies, but commissioners would still need to write rules, conduct examinations and resolve disputes over which tokens, platforms and products fall under each regulator’s jurisdiction.
Industry groups prepare for a longer campaign
The Blockchain Association is also entering a transition. Chief Executive Summer Mersinger is set to depart, and founding head Kristin Smith will return as interim CEO. The association will be among the industry groups seeking to influence a new draft alongside bank lobbying organizations, compliance specialists and law-enforcement stakeholders.
Crypto-focused political organizations spent more than $130 million during the 2024 election cycle, according to the supplied account. That spending built relationships across Congress, but the current negotiations show that campaign activity alone does not settle technical questions about market supervision, stablecoin design or financial-crime controls.
The failed vote does not automatically leave the industry without federal rules until March 2027. The SEC, CFTC, banking regulators and enforcement agencies retain existing authorities, while Congress could revive legislative talks before then. The more immediate issue is that firms still face a patchwork of agency interpretations while the Senate searches for language that can survive scrutiny from banks, crypto businesses and lawmakers in both parties.
Bipartisan discussions involving the Senate Banking Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee are continuing, with some participants considering a renewed legislative push after the midterm elections and others looking toward agency rulemaking. Any version capable of reaching the president’s desk will likely depend on whether negotiators can settle the stablecoin-yield dispute, define developer protections without weakening illicit-finance safeguards, and establish a workable SEC-CFTC boundary.
As Congress reshapes crypto rules, explore how policy meets markets in this breakdown of the market structure bill.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
