Crypto Groups Urge Action on Market Structure Bill as Critical

A broad coalition of more than 120 crypto and blockchain entities is pressing U.S. lawmakers to accelerate the markup of the CLARITY Act, a comprehensive federal framework for the market structure of digital assets. In a letter addressed to leadership of the Senate Banking Committee, the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association urged that the committee move forward with a markup rather than continue delays.

The CLARITY Act, which passed the House of Representatives in July 2025, has seen its progress stall due to a combination of government funding stoppages and ongoing disputes over issues such as stablecoin yield and other policy questions. The signatories contend that timely action is essential, noting that other major jurisdictions have already enacted broad regulatory regimes and warning that failure to act could erode the United States’ competitive standing in digital-asset innovation, investment, and jobs.

According to Cointelegraph, the letter was signed by roughly 120 entities, including prominent exchanges such as Coinbase and Kraken, alongside industry groups like the Texas Blockchain Council and the Solana Policy Institute. The push comes as concurrent advocacy efforts from other industry groups amplify pressure on lawmakers to settle differences and proceed to markup.

The Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Tim Scott, postponed a markup on the CLARITY Act in January, hours after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong signaled public reservations about the bill as written. Since that postponement, industry representatives and lawmakers have held meetings to discuss concerns—most notably how to address stablecoin yield and potential paths forward for a regulatory framework that satisfies both innovation and oversight.

As of Thursday, there had been no public announcement of a new markup date. In a related development, U.S. Senator Thom Tillis publicly urged committee leaders to consider delaying any markup until May to allow additional time for crypto and banking stakeholders to negotiate a compromise on stablecoin yield prospects.

On the same regulatory thread, industry letters have underscored the importance of a unified framework. The Digital Chamber, another advocacy voice for the sector, argued that the legislative window for this Congress is narrowing, urging swift scheduling of a markup “as soon as the calendar allows.”

Key takeaways

• More than 120 crypto and blockchain entities are pressing Congress to markup the CLARITY Act, spanning exchanges, trade associations, and policy institutes.
• The CLARITY Act seeks to establish a comprehensive federal market structure framework for digital assets, a policy objective that has gained bipartisan support but remains unsettled on key design questions.
• The bill advanced in the House in July 2025 but has been delayed in the Senate amid staffing gaps, funding uncertainties, and policy debates, particularly around stablecoin yield.
• There is growing engagement between lawmakers and industry participants to resolve differences that could unlock US leadership in digital-asset markets or risk delayed implementation and offshore migration.
• Regulatory process dynamics include calls for additional time to discuss GENI-style regulation and a related push by banking groups to extend comment periods for related rules.

Legislative push to finalize CLARITY Act

The core message from the coalition is simple: a timely markup on the CLARITY Act is critical to establishing a predictable and comprehensive federal framework for digital assets. The letter argues that a mature U.S. regime would reduce regulatory uncertainty for market participants, support domestic innovation, and help retain jobs and capital that might otherwise move offshore in search of clearer rules.

The House of Representatives previously advanced the CLARITY Act, signaling bipartisan support for a federal market structure. However, a year marked by fiscal standoffs and policy debates—especially surrounding stablecoins—has slowed progress in the Senate. In that context, industry participants have urged lawmakers to converge on a compromise that can be translated into binding legislation rather than sustained delay.

Representative dynamics have become more complex as lawmakers, regulators, and practitioners seek to align on how the programmatic approach to asset classification, custody, liquidity, and disclosures should operate in practice. The ongoing discussions reflect a broader cross-border policy push, with stakeholders noting that the absence of a cohesive U.S. policy risks economic and strategic setbacks relative to other jurisdictions that have moved forward with digital-asset regulation.

As the dialogue evolves, several lawmakers have signaled readiness to explore a May markup window in order to accommodate additional stakeholder input. The prospect of a mid-year markup underscores the balancing act between rigorous consumer protection, financial stability, and the need to catalyze domestic innovation in a rapidly evolving market.

Regulatory landscape and policy implications

The coalition’s appeal unfolds against a backdrop of shifting regulatory expectations and a wider international trend toward formalizing digital-asset markets. The European Union’s MiCA framework, for example, has already established a broad set of rules governing asset issuance, trading, and service-provider transparency, prompting U.S. policymakers to consider how a federal program would interact with global standards and cross-border activity.

Central to the debate is how to regulate stablecoins and their yield mechanisms. The letters from industry groups emphasize the need for a clear federal framework that can accommodate stablecoin issuance and liquidity management while ensuring investor protection, market integrity, and financial-system resilience. This inquiry continues to be a focal point for discussions between the crypto industry and banking regulators, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) having recently finalized related GENIUS regulations that governs stablecoin contexts and other digital-asset activities in the banking space.

In parallel, policymakers are weighing licensing, supervisory oversight, anti-money-laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) obligations, and the potential for a unified federal standard that reduces fragmentation across states. The push for a federal framework aligns with overarching regulatory objectives—transparency, resilience, and investor protection—while acknowledging the distinct characteristics of different digital assets and market participants.

Industry observers note that the CLARITY Act’s passage would influence not only crypto firms and exchanges but also banks engaging with digital-asset clients or custody solutions. A federal market structure could clarify licensing expectations, supervisory approaches, and product disclosures, thereby shaping risk management practices, compliance programs, and contractual relationships across the sector. At the same time, the design choices embedded in such legislation—how to classify tokens, define market participants, and regulate exchange operations—carry significant operational implications for both incumbents and new entrants.

Industry coalition and signatories

The letter’s signatories span a spectrum of market participants and policy organizations, signaling a broad base of support for a federal, coherent framework. In addition to exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken, signatories include industry associations and policy think tanks that advocate for streamlined oversight and robust consumer protections. The coalition’s posture reflects a preference for timely action on federal market structure rules to prevent regulatory drift and to set a clear path for digital-asset innovation under a unified regime.

“We are now more than halfway through the 119th Congress, and it has been more than 270 days since the House passed the CLARITY Act with strong bipartisan support and we recognize the legislative window for this Congress is narrowing.”

Complementing these efforts, The Digital Chamber issued a letter urging the banking committee to schedule a markup “as soon as the calendar allows,” highlighting the urgency of advancing a framework that can keep pace with evolving technology and market dynamics.

As part of broader regulatory engagement, the American Bankers Association recently requested an extension of 60 days to comment on GENI regulations from four federal agencies, following the OCC’s finalization of related rules. If granted, the extension would delay the full implementation of that particular regulatory package, illustrating how timing and sequencing of related rules can influence the trajectory of digital-asset policy in the United States.

Impact on stablecoins, banking integration, and compliance

Across the policy dialogue, stablecoins occupy a central role in shaping both regulatory expectations and practical compliance requirements. The debate over yield, reserve assets, and liquidity management has driven calls for clear federal rules that can accommodate stablecoin products while protecting consumers and the financial system. A comprehensive market structure framework would need to address whether and how stablecoins are regulated as tokens, deposits, or another class of financial instruments, along with corresponding reporting, capital, and risk-management standards.

From a banking perspective, the evolution of GENIUS rules and related oversight frameworks will influence how banks interact with digital-asset businesses. Institutions considering custody, settlement, and payment rails for digital assets require regulatory certainty about licensing, customer due diligence, and cross-border transactions. The ongoing discussions signal a broader expectation that any federal framework should harmonize with existing AML/KYC regimes and align with oversight expectations across federal and state jurisdictions.

In this context, the policy trajectory has practical implications for exchanges and liquidity venues, custody providers, and institutional investors. A well-defined federal framework could reduce compliance fragmentation, lower ambiguity in product classifications, and clarify the scope of permissible activities. Conversely, protracted delays raise concerns about competitive risk and policy fragmentation, potentially encouraging activity to migrate to regions with clearer rules or more predictable timelines.

Closing perspective

The coordinated federal-market-structure push reflects a strategic attempt to harmonize regulation with innovation, ensuring the United States remains a global hub for digital-asset activity while maintaining robust oversight. With lawmakers weighing stability, usability, and enforcement, the coming weeks will be critical in determining whether a markup can be scheduled and how the final framework will balance risk with opportunity for both incumbents and emerging participants.

This article was originally published as Crypto Groups Urge Action on Market Structure Bill as Critical on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.