Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly spoke with crypto reporter Eleanor Terrett this week after she questioned the exchange’s stance on crypto regulation.
Senate Banking has postponed the scheduled January 15 CLARITY Act increase, leaving the timing for Senate action on HR 3633 dependent on continued negotiations over language that could determine whether stablecoin rewards are treated as deposit-like yield.
The committee’s board session list for January 15 is marked “POSTPONED” and “Status: POSTPONED” on the panel schedule page. No replacement date was mentioned in the committee report provided.
Chairman Tim Scott said the increase would be delayed “as bipartisan negotiations continue.” He added: “Everyone remains at the table in good faith,” according to his statement.
The delay interrupts a legislative process that looked linear after the House passed H.R. 3633 on July 17, 2025, by a vote of 294-134. It was then sent to the Senate, where it was received on September 18, 2025 and referred for consideration.
The Senate Banking Majority Staff announced on Jan. 9 that the committee would hold a raise on Jan. 15. The announcement marked the session as an upcoming step for legislation on the structure of the digital asset market, according to the majority notice.
With the committee citing ongoing discussions, the procedural pause is now intertwined with a product dispute that puts stablecoin rewards at the center of lobbying pressure. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong wrote in an X-post that “draft amendments” would “destroy rewards on stablecoins.”
Armstrong added: “We would rather have no bill than a bad bill.” Coinbase withdrew its Senate support shortly before the markup, tying the dispute to stablecoin rewards and coalition timing.
Stablecoin rewards and the deposit-like returns debate
Banks have argued that stable coins that provide rewards can function as deposits. In that context, ‘reward’ is regarded as a consumer-oriented return product that competes with bank financing.
Banks are concerned that some tokens pay rewards similar to high-yield deposits of around 3.5%.
That rate reference is important to lawmakers because return mechanisms can be implemented at different layers of the stack. These include issuer programs, exchange programs and wallet-related incentives, each of which carries different consumer expectations and regulatory implications.
Coinbase’s own documentation illustrates how “rewards” can be structured with program terms rather than framed as a deposit interest rate. Help materials from Coinbase describe “Boosted Rewards” tied to USDC, including a base rewards rate and boosted levels based on eligibility requirements.
These details are outlined in Coinbase’s help documentation. For Senate negotiators setting guardrails, that distinction could determine whether a restriction bans explicit “interest,” limits marketing and pass-through revenue, or restricts specific compensation paths that are considered bank-like.
At the same time, negotiators could aim to preserve room for stimulus 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.
Claims of White House leverage increase uncertainty in the coalition
The political overlay increased as a claim about White House influence emerged in addition to the commission’s delay.
Eleanor Terrett posted on
“The White House is said to be furious with Coinbase’s ‘unilateral’ action on Wednesday, which it apparently was not informed of in advance, calling it a ‘back 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 by reprints and commentary, changing perceptions of the bill’s coalitional strength even without official confirmation.
Additionally, Erik Voorhees echoed Armstrong’s “no bill” stance with profanity, indicating that some parts of the crypto constituency may prefer legislative delays to restrictions on reward models.
Armstrong called Terrett directly in response.
I generally like your posts, but this is incorrect. The White House has been super constructive here.
They did ask us to see if we could reach a deal with the banks, which we are currently working on.
Actually, with this bill, we’ve come up with some good ideas about how we can help community banks specifically, because that’s what this is about… community banks, right? More soon.
Terrett hit back, claiming that Armstrong had validated her reporting, stating:
“My reporting was watertight and accurate.
You also just pointed out the central point of my story as correct: that the White House asked Coinbase to make a deal on the proceeds. My reporting is that WH support now appears to be dependent on that outcome.”
The committee’s delay means that the negotiating process, rather than formal votes on amendments, will likely determine when and how the issue is resolved.
Scale, calendar constraints, and possible paths forward
The policy commitment extends beyond the current markup because the definition of allowable rewards would scale with stablecoin supply and distribution. DeFiLlama data estimates the stablecoin market cap at approximately $311.563 billion at retrieval.
Citi’s GPS research projected stablecoin issuance of $1.9 trillion in a base case and $4.0 trillion in a bull scenario by 2030. The framework also tied transaction activity to velocity assumptions such as 50x, putting distribution economics and equilibrium maintenance at the heart of business models, according to Citi GPS.
Below this size, even small changes in the wording of what constitutes “rewards” could change which intermediaries set the spreads and customer relationships. The list of potential winners and losers includes banks, exchanges and payment companies.
In the short term, the markup calendar becomes the hard constraint. The Senate Banking schedule only shows the postponed status for January 15 and does not mention a rescheduled board session in the materials here.
Scott’s statement keeps negotiators focused on a deal path rather than a reset. That means the next observable step for market participants is a revised date or new draft that resolves the interest rate dispute without losing the votes needed to advance the bill.
Several legislative outcomes remain consistent with the data now available. One path is a rewrite that limits deposit returns while allowing 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, at the exchange level, or at both. That risk appears greater when programs resemble consumer savings returns and industry groups publicly signal their willingness to accept deferrals.
A third path is for the bill to move with some industry support, even if a major exchange remains opposed. That outcome would be in line with reports that the coalition dynamics surrounding the markup period were already under pressure.
Market participants who track probability also look at sentiment locations that determine resolution beyond official sources. Polymarket listed a 2026 CLARITY Act outcome contract that points to Congress.gov and official government sources for settlement, although the market price itself is not an official forecast.
For traders and compliance teams, that settlement language makes the commission’s next publication and any updated legal texts more relevant than social media claims, because official actions drive both legislative progress and contractual settlement criteria.
For now, the only formal change is procedural and documented: Senate Banking has postponed the January 15 CLARITY Act increase while negotiations continue. The committee has not posted a new date in the sources available here.