CFTC Chair Says CLARITY Act Nears Final Approval as Stablecoin Yield Talks Stall
CFTC Chair Mike Selig said the long‑debated crypto market structure bill known as the CLARITY Act is close to becoming law, suggesting it could reach the White House within months. Selig told FOX Business the legislation aims to provide clear rules for digital asset markets and prevent regulatory reversals. A key unresolved issue is whether stablecoins may offer yield; recent White House discussions between bank and crypto policy staff ended without agreement. Banks circulated a “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles” paper opposing stablecoin yields, while the Digital Chamber proposed a framework allowing payment stablecoins to generate yield in DeFi under rigorous safeguards. The White House Crypto Council may convene further talks. The article notes the total crypto market cap at about $2.29 trillion and highlights that negotiations over stablecoin rewards remain the bill’s principal sticking point.
Neutral
The news is market‑relevant but not decisively bullish or bearish. Positive: CFTC Chair optimism and a likely final vote signal regulatory clarity, which historically supports institutional participation and long‑term adoption, a bullish structural factor. Negative/uncertain: the unresolved stablecoin yield issue is a material policy risk that could constrain DeFi activity and crypto liquidity if yields are banned — a bearish factor for short‑term risk appetite. Short term, traders may see volatility around legislative milestones, headlines, and meetings as markets price policy risk; directional moves could be amplified in stablecoin‑sensitive sectors (DeFi tokens, lending protocols). Long term, enactment of a clear, balanced CLARITY Act would likely be constructive for market stability and capital inflows. Comparable events: past regulatory clarifications (e.g., ETF approvals) produced sustained inflows and price appreciation, while sudden regulatory restrictions (e.g., localized stablecoin or lending bans) produced sharp drawdowns. Overall, the combination of near‑term headline risk and potential long‑term clarity supports a neutral classification.