The U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill, the CLARITY Act, is facing a critical turning point in a Senate floor vote. While a last-minute compromise was reached regarding conflict-of-interest provisions involving President Donald Trump's family crypto businesses, the clash between the banking sector and the cryptocurrency industry over stablecoin rewards remains a key variable.
The U.S. Senate will conduct a procedural vote on the 15th (local time) to begin full Senate consideration of the CLARITY Act. To block a filibuster when bringing the bill to the floor, more than 60 votes out of 100 senators are required. Even if all 53 Republican senators vote in favor, at least seven votes must be secured from the Democratic and independent bloc. As some Republican senators have also expressed concern over the stablecoin reward provisions, the actual number of opposition votes needed could increase.
A breakthrough was achieved on a last-minute variable regarding conflict-of-interest issues related to President Trump's family cryptocurrency business. President Trump reportedly accepted about 80% of the bipartisan ethics provisions.
The remaining core issue is stablecoin rewards. The compromise is reported to limit paying deposit interest-like rewards on stablecoin balances held passively by users without specific activities, while permitting rewards tied to specific actions such as payments or trading.
This debate stems from a loophole left by the GENIUS Act enacted last year. While the GENIUS Act prohibited stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest to users, it did not explicitly address cases where crypto exchanges or electronic wallet operators separately provide rewards.
The banking sector views rewards paid by exchanges and third parties as a roundabout way of paying interest, arguing that a provision restricting indirect rewards should be included in the CLARITY Act. Conversely, the cryptocurrency industry counters that banning rewards tied to payments or transactions would degrade the utility and competitiveness of stablecoins.
The reason both industries are risking everything over reward regulations lies in the revenue structure of stablecoins. The banking sector seeks to protect deposits and customers by preventing capital flight into stablecoins, whereas issuers and exchanges aim to secure revenue generated from reserve assets as well as user touchpoints.
Even if this vote passes, several steps remain before the bill becomes law. The Senate must undergo bill review, amendment processing, and a final vote. Because the Senate version differs from the bill passed by the House of Representatives last year, the House must vote on the Senate version again or both chambers must reconcile their differences to produce a single unified bill. If the vote is defeated or delayed, passage before the November midterm elections is likely to become difficult. If the bill is not enacted before the current Congressional term ends in early January next year, the legislative process must restart in the new Congress.
The debate in the U.S. also presents challenges for South Korea. Domestically, discussions are centered on whether Korean won-denominated stablecoins should be issued primarily by banks or if fintech companies and virtual asset service providers should also be permitted. It demonstrates that beyond the issuing entities, the scope of interest and rewards that exchanges and electronic wallet operators can pay to users must also be determined.
The pace of legislation is another variable. Discussions on the domestic Digital Asset Framework Act are expected to gain momentum after public hearings in late September and the parliamentary audit in November. Concerns are raised that if institutionalization is delayed and U.S. dollar stablecoins establish themselves as the primary payment method in domestic tokenized government bonds, funds, and gold trading, transaction fees, user data, and market leadership could be surrendered to foreign issuers and platforms.
Lee Jun-ho, researcher at Hana Securities, stated, “As the delay in institutionalization prevents companies from initiating commercialization itself, global competitiveness is likely to weaken over time,” adding, “There is a high probability that domestic companies will move to launch businesses focused on global markets first.”
