The CLARITY Act’s markup has moved past the stablecoin yield standoff to Sen. John Kennedy’s housing frustration, unresolved protections for software developers, and the Republican vote math that Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott still needs to close.
The Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise that broke the yield deadlock allows stablecoin rewards tied to platform usage and activity while banning passive yield on idle balances, keeping crypto firms from replicating high-yield savings accounts.
Scott now needs to convert that policy win into a coalition one. He has said publicly that he wants “thirteen of thirteen Republicans” before moving to a bipartisan markup in May.
Punchbowl reported that Kennedy is withholding support partly because of frustration with the White House over the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Kennedy’s Build Now Act cleared the Senate inside that package, the House passed its own version, and bicameral reconciliation is unfinished.
His leverage over the CLARITY Act timeline is positional, as he holds a vote Scott needs, and his price is movement on housing that Scott cannot deliver unilaterally.
| Issue | Where it stands now | Who matters most | Why it matters for markup |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin yield | Main deadlock eased by the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise: rewards tied to usage/activity allowed, passive yield on idle balances barred | Tillis, Alsobrooks, bank lobby, crypto firms | Removes the most visible policy fight, but does not by itself secure a markup |
| Kennedy housing frustration | Still an active political complication tied to unfinished bicameral work on the ROAD to Housing Act / Build Now Act | Sen. John Kennedy, House leadership, White House | Kennedy holds a vote Scott needs, giving a non-crypto issue leverage over the crypto timeline |
| Republican vote math | Scott has said he wants all 13 Banking Republicans before moving to bipartisan markup | Tim Scott and the 13 Senate Banking Republicans | Full GOP unity makes markup easier and helps attract Democratic support later |
| Software-developer protections | Still unresolved; the BRCA / Section 1960 language remains under negotiation | Senate Banking negotiators, Judiciary voices, crypto industry | One of the biggest remaining substance fights and a possible source of delay |
| Ethics / AML concerns | Still live and capable of reopening opposition even after the yield compromise | Democrats, law enforcement, banking critics | Could slow or narrow support even if Republicans unify |
| Calendar / floor time | Window is tightening; delay past mid-May makes a summer path harder | Senate leadership, committee staff, House counterparts | Every week of slippage compresses markup, floor scheduling, House coordination, and conference time |
From one fight to several
Banks feared issuers paying yield on idle balances would pull deposits out of the traditional system, while crypto firms wanted yield as a product feature. The compromise resolved that dispute by separating activity-based rewards from passive accumulation.
Banks still worry privately that the “economically or functionally equivalent” clause leaves room for workarounds, but the public language has held enough for Scott to move past it.
Galaxy’s April update identified DeFi provisions, protections for noncustodial software developers, ethics provisions, and full Republican committee support as still-open items. This cluster requires different negotiations with different stakeholders, running simultaneously against a tightening calendar.
Software developer protections are technically the most consequential open item and publicly the least visible.
The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act framework and related Section 1960 language would carve out noncustodial software developers from certain compliance requirements, a provision the crypto industry considers essential to keeping DeFi development onshore.
Law enforcement raised objections to earlier versions of this language, arguing that broad carve-outs could weaken enforcement of money transmitters and create AML blind spots.
Senate Banking Republicans have kept defending the text publicly, which is itself evidence that the fight is still alive. The dispute centers on where Congress draws the line between building software and operating a financial service.
That distinction carries real consequences because a protocol’s developer and its operator can be the same person or entirely different parties, and compliance obligations are governed by different rules depending on that classification.
The calendar underneath everything
The bill still faces ethical disputes, AML objections, Senate floor time limits, and election-year timing friction, and missing a July window would effectively close the legislative opportunity for the cycle.
Galaxy put passage odds at roughly 50-50 and said they drop sharply if the markup slips past mid-May. Meanwhile, CLARITY Act approval odds on Polymarket for 2026 jumped 17% over the past week, from 47% to 64%.
A unanimous Republican committee vote makes it easier to attract Democratic co-sponsors and harder for leadership to deprioritize floor time. Every week of slippage compresses the space available for House coordination, conference negotiations, and floor scheduling.
The global context makes that compression costly, as Hong Kong’s regulator granted its first stablecoin issuer licenses in April 2026, and the EU’s MiCA framework fully takes effect on July 1, requiring firms serving EU clients without a license to stop operations.
The bull case requires Scott to lock in all 13 Republicans by securing enough movement on housing to satisfy Kennedy, or by having a direct conversation that separates his market structure vote from his housing frustration.
At the same time, the legislators produce a software-developer-level language narrow enough to avoid a law enforcement backlash without stripping the noncustodial carve-outs the industry considers essential.
If both conditions hold, a bipartisan committee margin becomes achievable before June, and a summer floor window stays in reach.
BlackRock’s IBIT held approximately $63.5 billion in net assets as of May 1, with nearly $630 million in inflows for all US-traded Bitcoin ETFs on the same day.
Bitcoin’s institutional access infrastructure already functions without CLARITY, but the bill’s passage carries more weight for exchange economics, stablecoin monetization, and DeFi formation than for Bitcoin’s basic investability.
The bear case unfolds if markup slips past mid-May and the open items accumulate. Bitcoin holds up better than the rest of the crypto complex in that scenario, because the ETF rails, treasury demand, and custody infrastructure built over the past two years are independent of congressional action.
However, the broader argument that Washington is building a framework that invites domestic capital formation loses credibility with each delay, and more of the next wave of stablecoin monetization, tokenization, and developer activity gravitates toward jurisdictions with already operational rules.
The stablecoin compromise gave Scott a policy anchor. Kennedy’s housing demand and the developer protection negotiations will test if he can hold his coalition on the ground where the disputes are political and structural.
Galaxy’s mid-May threshold noted that missing the time will make the bill’s odds of passage more dependent on leadership finding floor time in an election year for legislation that still draws objections from different parties.
The post Crypto Clarity rules may be delayed because Congress is somehow stuck arguing over housing appeared first on CryptoSlate.