Notably, Senator Tillis has caved in to intense lobbying from the banks. He recommends that the Senate Banking Committee delay the markup of the Clarity until May 2026. However, the Digital Chamber is demanding immediate legislative action, citing that failure to pass the bill by the end of May could indefinitely shelve the legislation.
Digital Chamber argues that legislative clarity is overdue
The Digital Chamber, crypto advocacy groups, and firms like Coinbase are arguing that legislative clarity is overdue. The Digital Chamber specifically notes that it has been over 270 days since the House passed its version of the bill. The Clarity Act’s markup was originally scheduled for late April but was postponed until May 2026 to allow time for negotiations.
Lawmakers like Senator Cynthia Lummis have also warned that further delays could push the bill past the 2026 legislative window, potentially shelving the federal crypto market structure rules for years. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) also delivered an ultimatum at a Washington event on April 22, declaring that the Clarity Act must clear Congress by the end of May. He argues that this deadline is Congress’s last real chance to deliver long-awaited regulatory certainty to the U.S. crypto industry.
A 21-page report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers further criticizes the continued bank lobbying as “greed or ignorance.” It cites economic reports suggesting that stablecoin yield would displace only a marginal 0.02% (~$2.1B) of total bank loans, which challenges the banking industry’s position that imposing an estimated $800 million in costs on consumers is justified. The NC Blockchain initiative suggests that bank fears of “deposit flight” are overstated.
Industry group frames the yield ban as counterproductive
The Industry group frames the yield ban on stablecoins as counterproductive and redundant given the existing framework. NC Blockchain argues that “shadow banking” concerns are already solved by the $GENIUS Act, which brought stablecoin issuers under federal oversight with strict reserve, capital, and risk management requirements.
The industry group further emphasizes that a ban on stablecoin yield risks pushing capital offshore or into opaque structures beyond U.S. regulatory reach, rather than reducing systemic risk. It argues that banning yield would cede leadership to other jurisdictions (such as the UAE and the EU) that are developing frameworks for yield-bearing digital assets.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also warned that regulatory delays could push digital asset innovation toward Singapore and Dubai, which are courting U.S. crypto capital. That capital still moves even without the Clarity Act, just without U.S. legal protection, institutional guardrails, or the U.S. SEC and CFTC’s clarity. The NC Blockchain initiative says moving the bill to markup under Scott’s leadership is the only way to provide the legislative “greenlight” that North Carolina’s tech and banking sectors need to collaborate effectively.
Meanwhile, Polymarket odds of the Clarity Act passing in 2026 moved from 38% to 46% following Moreno’s statement on April 22. Encouraging, but nowhere near confident. However, the FDIC and the OCC are already moving forward with rules to operationalize the $GENIUS Act’s framework for issuers.