On September 15, the U.S. Senate will hold a procedural vote on (the CLARITY bill).
A phrase to make the life-or-death line of this vote clear: 60 ballots are needed to begin consideration. The Republican Party has only 53 seats.
Even if all 53 Republicans vote in favor, there are still 7 votes missing.
Those 7 votes need to be ripped out of the Democratsโ hands.
Polymarket shows that the chance the CLARITY bill will be approved in 2026 is only 15%.
What hurts even more is that Republican Senator Tillis himself said: โIf the White House isnโt interested in reducing the gaps in the ethics terms, the bill will fail.โ
This isnโt a pro-crypto versus anti-crypto vote.
Itโs the political arithmetic of the three words โmoney, power, specificity/particularity.โ
First word: โmoneyโ
Can stablecoins or may not pay yield to holders?
Thatโs the most fatal disagreement in the entire bill.
Lobbyist groups from the banking sector โ including the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers Association, and associations from 76 states โ sent a joint letter to the Senate opposing the wording of Section 404. What is their central concern? If stablecoins can pay yield, people will transfer their bank deposits to crypto platforms.
With deposits gone, what will community banks use to fund housing loans, loans to small and medium-sized businesses, and agricultural credit?
Section 404 of the bill tries to draw a line: it bans โpassive incomeโ (i.e., when you simply hold and automatically earn interest), but allows โactivity-linked rewardsโ (for example, when you do staking, do market making, or pay with a card and receive rewards).
Seems reasonable, right?
The problem is that this line isnโt drawn clearly.
#CPIWatch #ClarytiAct