Stablecoins face delay as Senate eyes April CLARITY Act

Calendar constraints and policy rifts are delaying the CLARITY Act

As reported by Baker McKenzie, the Senate Banking Committee postponed a planned markup on January 14, 2026, after portions of industry support were withdrawn over contested provisions. The development underscores fragile momentum, with negotiators balancing innovation goals against regulatory certainty. Separately, election-year scheduling may further constrain floor time as midterms approach, according to Coinpedia, meaning even optimistic April expectations could slip.

SEC and CFTC jurisdiction: how oversight could be divided

According to DLNews, a central sticking point is how the CLARITY Act assigns jurisdiction between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Without clearly defined roles, the outlet notes, regulatory conflict and uncertainty could persist.

In practice, the eventual text will need to specify who oversees key activities and where supervisory boundaries begin and end. Until that definition work is complete, market participants are likely to face continued uncertainty around registration pathways, disclosures, and market-surveillance expectations.

Stablecoin rewards limits and their potential market impact

According to aInvest, Coinbase executives argue that draft restrictions on stablecoin rewards could undermine U.S. leadership in digital payments. The debate centers on whether caps or prohibitions on rewards would unnecessarily constrain product design and deter participation.

Industry discussion has increasingly focused on how limitations might redirect liquidity if investor incentives are curtailed. “Larger, institutional investors remain parked, waiting for regulatory clarity. Any continued delay risks liquidity being lost or diverted,” said Patrick Witt, Executive Director at the Crypto Council, in remarks covered by MarketMinute.

The near-term market impact will depend on where the CLARITY Act lands: stringent limits could compress rewards programs, while more permissive rules could preserve existing designs but with clearer guardrails. Given the unresolved policy rifts and tight congressional calendar, timelines remain fluid and provisions may continue to evolve during negotiations.