With 2026 just around the corner, there is growing uncertainty as to whether the Cryptocurrency Market Structure Bill will be passed at the beginning of the year, or whether it will be embroiled in a political battle that will further delay its passage.
Key unresolved issues continue to slow momentum, including how the bill should address stablecoin yields, conflict of interest language, and the treatment of decentralized finance under federal law.
Sponsored Sponsored
Path to Senate vote uncertain
The CLARITY Act passed the House of Representatives in July with broad bipartisan support, marking the strongest move yet toward a federal digital asset framework.
The bill currently awaits action in the Senate, where the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee are advancing parallel versions of the market structure framework. The Senate’s divided jurisdiction adds complexity, with the Banking Committee overseeing securities and the Agriculture Committee responsible for commodities.
Both committees have now published discussion drafts, but a unified package has not yet emerged. Lawmakers will need to reconcile their differences before either committee sends the consolidated bill to the Senate floor.
One of the major technical debates concerns how yield-bearing stablecoins should be treated by law.
Banks push for broader yield limits
The GENIUS Act, passed earlier this year, prohibited stablecoin issuers from paying any form of interest or yield to holders.
However, the limits are narrowly written. This only applies to direct payments from payment stablecoin issuers and does not explicitly cover rewards programs, third-party yields, or other digital asset structures.
Sponsored Sponsored
Banking groups say the gaps could allow for workarounds and are urging lawmakers to expand the ban in future market structure legislation. They want broader rules that cover all forms of yield associated with stablecoins.
Some senators seem open to this approach, and the issue is a key part of the negotiations. Any expansion could impact how stablecoins compete with traditional bank deposits, which remains a central concern for the banking lobby.
Meanwhile, lawmakers remain divided on how potential conflicts of interest should be addressed in the broader framework.
Sponsored Sponsored
Concerns about political influence grow
The involvement of US President Donald Trump and his family in crypto-related projects has brought renewed scrutiny of potential ethical concerns.
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have argued that new conflict of interest language is needed to ensure politicians and their relatives are prohibited from engaging in activities that could call into question their influence over digital asset policy.
Such measures would help protect the bill from any perception of political interference.
However, the proposed language did not appear in the House-passed CLARITY Act, nor was it included in an earlier Senate draft. Its absence has become a point of debate, with disagreements contributing to continued hesitation.
Meanwhile, questions remain about how the bill should address decentralized finance (DeFi).
Sponsored Sponsored
DeFi surveillance remains unresolved
The Market Structure Bill is designed for centralized intermediaries such as exchanges, brokers and custody platforms. However, the rapid rise of DeFi raises questions that the Senate has not fully resolved.
The current draft focuses primarily on storage activities. However, some traditional financial institutions are advocating a broader definition that would classify developers, validators, and other non-custodial entities as regulated intermediaries.
Such an approach would greatly expand federal oversight and reshape the legal environment for open source development.
The bill is unlikely to move forward until lawmakers define its boundaries. DeFi issues remain one of the key factors shaping when the Market Structure Bill finally moves forward in 2026.
