With 2026 on the horizon, uncertainty is mounting over whether the crypto market structure bill will sail through early in the year or become mired in a political fight that pushes its passage further down the calendar.
Key unresolved issues continue to slow momentum, including how the bill should address stablecoin yield, conflict-of-interest language, and the treatment of decentralized finance under federal law.
Path to Senate Vote Uncertain
The CLARITY Act cleared the House in July with broad bipartisan support, marking the strongest move yet toward a federal digital asset framework.
The bill now awaits action in the Senate, where the Banking and Agriculture committees are advancing parallel versions of a market-structure framework. The Senate’s split jurisdiction adds complexity, with the Banking Committee overseeing securities, while the Agriculture Committee handles commodities.
Both committees have now published discussion drafts, but a unified package has yet to emerge. Lawmakers still need to reconcile differences before either committee can send a combined bill to the Senate floor.
One major technical dispute involves how the legislation should treat yield-bearing stablecoins.
Banks Push Broader Yield Restrictions
The GENIUS Act, passed earlier this year, bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying holders any form of interest or yield.
However, the restriction is narrowly written. It applies only to direct payments from payment-stablecoin issuers and does not explicitly cover reward programs, third-party yield, or other digital asset structures.
Banking groups argue these gaps could allow workarounds and are urging lawmakers to expand the prohibition in upcoming market structure legislation. They want a broader rule that covers all forms of yield associated with stablecoins.
Several senators appear open to that approach, giving the issue significant weight in negotiations. Any expansion would influence how stablecoins compete with traditional bank deposits, which remains a central concern for the banking lobby.
Meanwhile, lawmakers remain divided over how the broader framework should address potential conflicts of interest.
Concerns Over Political Influence Intensify
The involvement of US President Donald Trump and his family members in crypto-related projects has prompted renewed scrutiny of potential ethical concerns.
Some lawmakers, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, argue that new conflict-of-interest language is necessary to ensure that political figures and their relatives are prohibited from engaging in activities that could raise questions about their influence over digital asset policy.
Such measures would help insulate the legislation from perceptions of political interference.
However, the proposed language does not appear in the House-passed CLARITY Act, nor was it included in earlier Senate drafts. Its absence has become a point of debate, and the disagreement is contributing to ongoing hesitation.
Meanwhile, questions remain regarding how the bill should address decentralized finance (DeFi).
DeFi Oversight Remains Unresolved
The market structure bill is designed for centralized intermediaries, including exchanges, brokers, and custodial platforms. Yet the rapid rise of DeFi introduces questions the Senate has not fully resolved.
Current drafts primarily focus on custodial activity. However, some traditional financial institutions are advocating for broader definitions that would classify developers, validators, and other non-custodial actors as regulated intermediaries.
Such an approach would significantly expand federal oversight and reshape the legal environment for open-source development.
Until lawmakers define that boundary, the bill is unlikely to advance. The DeFi question remains one of the key factors shaping when the market structure bill may finally move forward in 2026.
