Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly sparred with crypto reporter Eleanor Terrett this week after she questioned the exchange’s stance on crypto regulation, prompting an exchange that quickly spilled onto social media and reignited tensions between industry leaders and the broader community.
Senate Banking postponed its planned Jan. 15 markup of the CLARITY Act, leaving timing for Senate action on H.R. 3633 dependent on continued negotiations over language that could shape whether stablecoin rewards are treated as deposit-like yield.
The committee’s executive session listing for Jan. 15 is labeled “POSTPONED” and “Status: POSTPONED” on the panel’s schedule page. No replacement date was posted in the committee record provided.
Chairman Tim Scott said the markup would be delayed “as bipartisan negotiations continue.” He added, “everyone remains at the table working in good faith,” according to his statement.
The delay interrupts a legislative path that had looked linear after the House approved H.R. 3633 by a 294-134 vote on July 17, 2025. It was then sent to the Senate, where it was received Sept. 18, 2025, and referred for consideration.
Senate Banking’s majority staff announced on Jan. 9 that the committee would hold a markup on Jan. 15. The announcement framed the session as an upcoming step for digital asset market structure legislation, according to the majority’s notice.
With the committee citing ongoing talks, the procedural pause is now intertwined with a product dispute that places stablecoin rewards near the center of lobbying pressure. Brian Armstrong, Coinbase’s CEO, wrote in an X post that “draft amendments” would “kill rewards on stablecoins.”
Armstrong added, “We’d rather have no bill than a bad bill”. Coinbase withdrew support for the Senate push shortly before the markup and tied the dispute to stablecoin rewards and coalition timing.
Stablecoin rewards and the deposit-like yield debate
Banks have argued that reward-bearing stablecoins can function like deposits. That framing treats “rewards” as a consumer-facing yield product that competes with bank funding.
Bank have concerns that some tokens pay reward rates resembling high-yield deposits around 3.5%.
That rate reference matters for lawmakers because yield mechanics can be implemented at different layers of the stack. Those include issuer programs, exchange programs, and wallet-linked incentives, each carrying different consumer expectations and regulatory implications.
Coinbase’s own documentation illustrates how “rewards” can be structured with program conditions rather than framed as a deposit interest rate. Coinbase help materials describe “Boosted Rewards” tied to USDC, including a base reward rate and “boosted” tiers based on participation requirements.
Those details are laid out in Coinbase’s help documentation. For Senate negotiators drafting guardrails, that distinction can drive whether any restriction bans explicit “interest,” restricts marketing and pass-through yield, or limits specific reward pathways viewed as bank-like.
At the same time, negotiators could aim to preserve room for incentive programs that do not resemble insured deposit accounts. The question is whether lawmakers draw the line at the stablecoin level, the exchange level, or both.
White House leverage claims add uncertainty to the coalition
The political overlay intensified as a claim about White House leverage circulated alongside the committee’s delay.
Eleanor Terrett posted on X, citing an unnamed source, that the White House was considering pulling support unless Coinbase returned to the table with an agreement on yield that satisfies banks.
“The White House is said to be furious with Coinbase’s “unilateral” action on Wednesday, which it apparently was not notified of in advance, calling it a “rug pull” against the White House and the rest of the industry. The White House does not believe that one company speaks for the entire industry, the source continued.”
The same claim was amplified through reprints and commentary, altering perceptions of the bill’s coalition strength even without official confirmation.
Separately, Erik Voorhees echoed Armstrong’s “no bill” posture with profanity, reflecting that some parts of the crypto constituency may prefer legislative delay to constraints on reward models.
Armstrong, directly called out Terrett in a reply.
In general, love your posts, but this is not accurate. The White House has been super constructive here.
They did ask us to see if we can go figure out a deal with the banks, which we’re currently working on.
Actually, we’ve been cooking up some good ideas on how we can help the community banks specifically in this bill, since that’s what this is about…..the community banks, right? More coming soon.
Terrett hit back, claiming Armstrong had validated her reporting, stating,
“My reporting was airtight and accurate.
You also just cited the central point of my story as correct: that the White House asked Coinbase to go secure a deal on yield. My reporting is that WH support now appears to be contingent on that outcome.”
The committee’s postponement means the negotiation track, rather than formal amendment votes, will likely determine when and how the issue is resolved.
Scale, calendar constraints, and possible paths forward
The policy stakes extend beyond the current markup because the definition of allowable rewards would scale with stablecoin supply and distribution. DeFiLlama data put the stablecoin market capitalization at about $311.563 billion at retrieval.
Citi’s GPS research projected stablecoin issuance of $1.9 trillion in a base scenario and $4.0 trillion in a bull scenario by 2030. The framework also tied transaction activity to velocity assumptions such as 50x, making distribution economics and balance retention central to business models, according to Citi GPS.
Under those magnitudes, even narrow drafting changes around what constitutes “rewards” could shift which intermediaries capture spreads and customer relationships. The list of potential winners and losers includes banks, exchanges, and payment firms.
In the near term, the markup calendar becomes the hard constraint. Senate Banking’s schedule shows only the postponed status for Jan. 15 and does not list a rescheduled executive session in the materials here.
Scott’s statement keeps negotiators’ focus on a deal path rather than a reset. That means the next observable step for market participants is a revised date or a new draft that resolves the yield dispute without losing votes needed to advance the bill.
Several legislative outcomes remain consistent with the record now available. One path is a rewrite that constrains deposit-like yield while permitting narrowly defined incentive programs, using definitions and disclosures that separate bank-like products from platform marketing.
A second path is a longer delay if negotiators cannot agree on whether rewards should be limited at the stablecoin level, the exchange level, or both. That risk appears elevated where programs resemble consumer savings yields and industry groups publicly signal a willingness to accept delay.
A third path is the bill moving with some industry support even if a large exchange remains opposed. That outcome would align with reporting that coalition dynamics were already strained around the markup window.
Market participants tracking probability are also watching sentiment venues that define resolution off official sources. Polymarket listed a 2026 CLARITY Act outcome contract that references Congress.gov and official government sources for settlement, though the market price itself is not an official forecast.
For traders and compliance teams, that settlement language makes the next committee posting and any updated bill text more relevant than social-media claims, since official actions drive both legislative progress and contractual resolution criteria.
For now, the only formal change is procedural and documented: Senate Banking postponed the Jan. 15 CLARITY Act markup while negotiations continue. The committee has not posted a new date in the sources available here.
