The battle for the future of cryptocurrencies in the USA: the industry is pushing for the clarity act, while banking pressures are blocking an agreement in the Senate

Cryptocurrency lobbyists focused on the “Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025” (H.R. 3633), viewing it as a key document for the sector’s further growth. However, behind closed Senate doors, a fierce battle is underway – not so much over the law itself, but over who will profit from the future market. Republicans want a quick vote in the banking committee by January 15, but Democrats and traditional banks are blocking negotiations with increasing regulatory demands.

Where does the real conflict lie?

It turns out the dispute isn’t about financial security but about pure profits. Companies like Ripple see the possibility of opening business models currently blocked by unclear rules. However, American banks earn about $176 billion annually from deposits and an additional $187 billion from card transaction fees – averaging $1,440 per household per year.

This is where the real problem arises: stablecoins threaten these margins. The cryptocurrency industry wants to enable token holders to receive rewards from reserve assets (such as government bonds). Banks strongly oppose this, arguing that deposits will flow out of the traditional financial system. However, data suggests otherwise – studies have not shown a statistically significant link between stablecoin growth and a decline in bank deposits.

Democratic demands: fear of DeFi and centralization

Democrats have proposed a series of new demands that would fundamentally change the law’s impact on innovation. Key requirements include:

• Mandatory user verification at the point of access to DeFi interfaces
• Expansion of the Department of the Treasury’s oversight powers over the sector
• A new regulatory category for “non-decentralized" DeFi – which in practice includes many existing projects claiming decentralization
• A cap of $200 million on capital raising for issuers
• A reverse reporting model: projects would proactively notify the SEC that they are not securities

This last change is crucial – instead of waiting for enforcement actions, it will be a “catch me if you can” game, significantly tightening requirements for early-stage startups.

Institutional ambitions and global competition

Ripple, which holds a banking license, recently acquired major broker Hidden Road, handling about $3 trillion annually. This transaction signals a strategic approach to functions requiring deposits and approved operational controls – actions impossible at scale without federal frameworks, which the Clarity Act aims to provide.

Meanwhile, the world does not wait. Europe has already implemented MiCA, serving as a reference single-market license. Asia – especially Singapore as a key financial hub in Asia – and Hong Kong actively attract liquidity that American companies are trying to keep within the country. The Senate should not ignore this jurisdictional arbitrage: if regulations become too restrictive, the cryptocurrency industry will move to where rules are more friendly to innovation.

Revenue sources as the key to the debate

Brookings Institution research links stablecoin growth to demand for short-term government bonds – a channel that suggests the scale of cryptocurrencies should be viewed by the Department of the Treasury from a public finance perspective. This adds weight to arguments for accelerating legislative action, especially under international competitive pressure.

Ultimately, the Clarity Act will test whether Congress will support innovation or protect the profitability of the banking sector. The answer will determine whether the future of financial infrastructure will be built in the USA or outside its borders.