A broad industry coalition is escalating its push for a Clarity Act markup, urging the Senate Banking Committee to move from private negotiations into a formal committee vote. The appeal came in an April 23 letter led by the Crypto Council for Innovation and the Blockchain Association. It was addressed to Chairman Tim Scott, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Ruben Gallego.
The coalition framed the markup as a gating event: without committee action, market structure work risks stalling while other jurisdictions advance clearer rulebooks. In public accounts of the letter, the group argued that delays could push capital formation, hiring, and product development to more predictable regulatory environments.
Clarity Act markup debate centers on stablecoin rewards and oversight lines
The letter emphasized policy areas that have repeatedly surfaced as negotiating flashpoints. One key item involves consumer rewards linked to payment stablecoins—how lawmakers draw the line between “activity-based” incentives and yield-like programs that critics say resemble interest. The coalition urged lawmakers to preserve transaction-based rewards while still building guardrails that satisfy consumer protection and banking-system concerns.
Regulatory perimeter design sits at the center of the market structure fight. The coalition pressed for clearer delineation between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, particularly as tokenized instruments blur legacy categories. Senate Banking Republicans have separately promoted the bill as a way to replace “regulation by enforcement” with statutory lanes, arguing that clarity strengthens market integrity while keeping innovation onshore.
A third issue involves protections for decentralized developers and service providers. The industry letter highlighted the need to avoid writing rules that treat publishing software as a centralized financial intermediary. Moreover, a distinction that proponents say is necessary for non-custodial tools and open-source infrastructure to operate without constant legal ambiguity.
Clarity Act markup pressure rises as timelines slip toward late April or May
The political calendar is tightening, and that reality is shaping how both supporters and skeptics message the moment. Chairman Tim Scott previously announced the committee would postpone a markup as bipartisan negotiations continued, describing ongoing discussions across industry, financial-sector stakeholders, and both parties.
Outside analysis has increasingly focused on sequencing risk: even if the committee marks up the bill, the path still runs through floor time, reconciliation work, and a final signature. The Senate Banking Committee was expected to announce a markup hearing with late-April timing in view, while noting unresolved issues that could still complicate the schedule.
Some lawmakers and commentators have publicly tied success to the next few weeks. Sen. Bernie Moreno describes an end-of-May target for completing market structure legislation, paired with dismissive language about bank opposition to stablecoin-related rewards.
The Senate Banking Committee itself has published materials positioning the bill as a consumer-protection and national-security measure alongside an innovation framework. Those fact sheets argue the legislation strengthens disclosure, preserves anti-fraud authority, and clarifies SEC/CFTC jurisdiction, while also carving out room for responsible DeFi development.
Clarity Act markup fight reflects broader enforcement and market context
Part of the coalition’s urgency message rests on a familiar industry critique: agencies can shift course, but statutes persist. In coverage of the letter, the coalition argued that guidance and incremental agency steps do not substitute for a durable market structure framework, especially after years in which enforcement actions effectively set policy boundaries.
That argument lands during an evolving regulatory backdrop. A legal analysis noted that court decisions and ongoing debates about token sales classifications have influenced how U.S. regulators approach crypto markets, including changes in enforcement posture in early 2026. From the industry’s perspective, that volatility reinforces why a committee markup matters: it signals Congress—not litigation calendars—will define the next framework.
State-federal tensions also remain part of the legislative math. A January letter from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors discussed how market structure proposals interact with state authority and urged additional changes as the Clarity Act “proceeds to markup and the Senate floor,” reflecting that some stakeholders want clearer limits on preemption and tighter drafting around stablecoin yield restrictions.
Clarity Act markup signers include major exchanges, issuers, and investors
Public reporting on the April 23 letter described a wide set of signatories spanning exchanges, stablecoin issuers, infrastructure and analytics firms, and venture investors. Companies such as Coinbase, Circle, Kraken, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz are among those supporting the markup effort, alongside additional industry groups and local chapters.
The breadth matters strategically because the coalition is not arguing for a narrow carveout. It is signaling to senators that compromise language on stablecoin rewards, agency jurisdiction, and DeFi developer treatment has become the minimum viable package for keeping the U.S. market structure credible in global competition.
That framing is consistent with how Senate Banking Republicans have described the bill’s aims—clear rules, tougher illicit finance tools, and a future-proofed pathway for financial innovation to remain anchored in the United States.