The CLARITY Act is a fight against dollar production and deflation
With the January 15 deadline missing and pushed to the end of the month, the Digital Asset Market Transparency (CLARITY) Act is turning into a proxy fight over who will produce mid-US dollars on onchain–decentralized finance (Diffi) protocols and payment rails–or the narrow big custodians and banks.
In tightening the latest draft of how to issue rewards on Statcoins, critics, including stablecoin issuers and institutional DeFi platforms, warn that the bill risks exporting onchain credit rather than keeping it safe in the US.
The Coinbase Rebellion Shows Industry Inequality
Coinbase's decision this week to pull support for the bill has addressed industry fears that the deal was too far-fetched for incumbents, the article said, locking in a penalty model for DeFi and rewards.
Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, argued that “no bill is better than a bad bill,” and Jake Chervinsky, Chief Legal Officer of Variant Fund, said CLARITY “is the type of law that will last for 100 years” and “we can take all the time we need to make it right.”
Related: Coinbase CEO expects market structure bill ‘within a few weeks'
How CLARITY will transform the onchain dollar product
Jacob Kronbichler, CEO and founder of onchain credit marketplace Clearpool, spoke to Cointelegraph about the CLARITY Act's “main concern”: regulators who decide where risk is located, not how it is managed in onchain markets.
“The need for dollar production will not disappear due to the law,” he argued, if the on-chain liquidity structures are limited, the activity “may move offshore or focus on a small number of middlemen”.
Ron Tarter, CEO of stablecoin issuer MNEE and a former lawyer, echoed Kronbichler's concerns, telling Cointelegraph: “If Statcoin rewards are pushed offshore instead of being transparent and compliant, the US could lose innovation and visibility in these markets.”
“This choice will shape where institutional onchain credit will grow over the next decade,” Kronbichler said.
As Tarter draws a deliberate line between passive, deposit-like interest and activity-based incentives for readers of CLARITY, he adds that the key ending is the phrase “retention-only.”
From his point of view, the bill is trying to mediate between banking groups that worry about platforms that regard stable coin surplus deposits and rewards as a primary revenue stream and incentive.
RELATED: Crypto Industry Divided by CLARITY Act After Coinbase Drops Ratings
DeFi, developers and “control” line
For now, Kronbichler sees one bright spot: CLARITY's current approach “makes an intelligent distinction by not treating retention software developers as financial intermediaries, which he calls critical to innovation and institutional comfort.”
The main challenge, he argued, is to keep compliance obligations aligned with entities that control access, security or risk metrics, rather than moving to generic software controllers that don't. If those lines are blurred, institutional desks will struggle to assess liability and may simply shy away from US-front onchain credit products.
Tarter agrees that the developer control challenge is likely to be one of the most debated flashpoints, expecting intense debate over truly decentralized software and “situations where a small group can materially control the outcome.”
Magazine: How crypto rules changed in 2025 – and how they will change in 2026
Real product and network activity
Ambos – data analytics for the Bitcoin Lightning Network – CEO Jesse Schrader sees a real consumer protection problem for rewards, which covers complementarity or re-hypothecation, reflecting past failures like Celsius and Blockchain.
It draws a clear line between non-transparent, platform-based products and activity-derived products, arguing for greater transparency in terms of network design.
For lawmakers seeking to preserve that distinction, Schrader's first request is simple: “Require regulated tokens to clearly disclose product sources so that consumers can adequately assess their risk.”
What kind of CLARITY outcome would actually protect users without stifling compliant onchain dollar markets for everyone involved?
“A light touch from regulators is appreciated,” Schrader said, while Tarter believes the win comes from US policy that protects consumers “without stifling compliant innovation” (and without locking in a reward system that only big regulators can navigate).
