The Senate Banking Committee’s crypto market structure bill enters the CLARITY Act markup with more than 100 proposed amendments.
This turns a long-delayed vote on the CLARITY Act into a test of whether a fragile stablecoin compromise can survive pressure from banks, Democrats and crypto industry groups.
The final number of amendments has not yet been formally confirmed. However, the current markup change proposal is on par with January’s proposal, when 137 amendments were tabled before a planned committee vote was scrapped.
The size of the pile of amendments underlines how uncertain the bill remains even after months of negotiations.
Banks force vote on stablecoin rewards
The most consequential battle is over stablecoin rewards, the issue that helped stall previous negotiations and now threatens to reopen the rift between crypto companies and the banking sector.
The Senate compromise would ban rewards on inactive stablecoin holdings when those rewards resemble interest on bank deposits. It would still allow incentives related to other stablecoin activities, such as payments or transactions.
That distinction was intended to prevent stablecoins from becoming deposit substitutes, while allowing companies to reward their use in place of passive balances.
Banks say the language does not go far enough. Their concern is that crypto exchanges and other intermediaries could structure rewards around stablecoin activities in a way that still takes deposits away from insured banks.
Banking groups have been pushing senators to close what they see as a loophole and prevent stablecoin issuers or affiliates from offering yield-like incentives that compete with bank accounts.
Sens. Jack Reed and Tina Smith have reportedly introduced an amendment to tighten that standard.
Their proposal would focus on rewards that are “substantially comparable” to deposit rates, a wording that could give regulators more leeway to block incentive programs that banks consider functionally equivalent to returns.
That amendment could become one of the markup’s clearest votes. Supporting it would bring the bill closer to the banking sector’s position. Opposing it would preserve the Tillis-led compromise and send a signal that committee members are unwilling to use the Market Structure Act to further limit stablecoin incentives.
The lobbying campaign around the facility has already intensified. Stand With Crypto, the Coinbase-backed advocacy group, said bank lobbyists sent 8,000 letters to stop stablecoin rewards.
The group said its own advocates have made 8,000 calls and sent 300,000 emails in recent months, and supporters have contacted lawmakers in favor of CLARITY nearly 1.5 million times.
On the other hand, traditional financial leaders actively maintain pressure to ensure the amendment’s success.
Lorrie Trogden, president and CEO of the Arkansas Bankers Association, recently issued a public call to action. At X, she urged members of the banking industry to make their voices heard ahead of Thursday’s markup.
These efforts reflect an unusually visible outside campaign for a commission increase. They also show how a technical debate over reward language has become a proxy battle over whether banks or crypto platforms will control the next layer of dollar-based payments.
Warren insists on ethics and access restrictions for the Fed
Meanwhile, the fight against stablecoins isn’t the only pressure point Democrats are bringing to the markup.
Crypto-skeptical Senator Elizabeth Warren has reportedly filed more than 40 amendments, the largest individual set among committee members.
Her proposals target several parts of the bill, but one of the most important would prevent the Federal Reserve from granting master accounts to crypto companies.
A Fed master account gives an eligible institution direct access to the central bank’s payment rails.
Crypto companies have long sought clearer paths into the banking system, while regulators and banks have warned that granting direct access to new financial firms could create new supervisory and stability risks.
Warren’s amendment would put that fight squarely in the debate over the CLARITY Act. If passed, it would limit the ability of crypto companies to use the market structure law as a path to deeper integration with the Fed’s main payments infrastructure.
In particular, banking associations such as the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) previously criticized the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s approval of a master account for the crypto exchange Kraken.
According to the group:
“Giving non-bank entities and crypto institutions access to the master accounts poses risks to the banking system.”
Meanwhile, Warren also emphasizes the ethical argument that has become central to the Democratic backlash.
Lawmakers have said new crypto legislation should not pass through the Banking Committee without stronger guardrails to address conflicts of interest involving President Donald Trump and his family’s crypto ventures.
That line of attack gives Democrats a broader political framework than just investor protection. It links the bill to concerns that government officials could benefit from policies that expand the digital asset market, especially if the legislation leaves gaps around affiliate projects, stablecoin activities or token holdings linked to political figures.
The ethical pressure complicates the Republican case for speed. Supporters argue the bill is needed to end regulatory uncertainty.
Warren and other skeptics argue that speed without additional safeguards could entrench conflict before Congress builds a sustainable oversight framework.
DeFi and legal tender changes are widening the battle
Other Democratic amendments would expand the debate beyond stablecoins and ethics to the structure of decentralized finance and the legal status of crypto assets.
Senator Mark Warner introduced an amendment that would revise the bill’s decentralized finance provisions.
The latest CLARITY Act text seeks to define when a protocol is sufficiently decentralized and when an operator, platform or intermediary should face bank-like compliance obligations.
That section is one of the most technically sensitive parts of the bill, as it determines whether some DeFi systems can operate outside traditional intermediary rules or must comply with reporting, monitoring and anti-money laundering requirements.
Warner’s amendment signals that some Democrats remain uncomfortable with the bill’s treatment of DeFi.
Their concern is that broad exemptions for decentralized protocols could allow companies to avoid oversight by claiming that no central entity controls the system.
Crypto developers counter that rules designed for jailed intermediaries cannot be neatly applied to open-source protocols without forcing or shutting down some projects offshore.
Reed also filed a separate amendment that would ban cryptocurrencies from being used as legal tender, including for tax payments.
That proposal would counter efforts by some crypto-friendly lawmakers to give Bitcoin or other digital assets a more formal role in public payments.
Together, the DeFi and legal tender changes show that the upcoming increase will not be limited to one banking dispute.
Senators will also be asked to decide how much autonomy decentralized systems should have, the extent to which crypto assets should be allowed to enter public finances, and whether the bill gives regulators enough authority to monitor risks across the market.
The crypto industry is urging senators to toe the line
Despite all this pressure, crypto industry groups are urging the committee to move forward with the CLARITY Act without changes that would weaken the compromise.
At X, the Blockchain Association and Crypto Council for Innovation call the markup a defining moment for U.S. leadership in financial technology.
Their argument is that the bill would replace fragmented, enforcement-oriented oversight with a legal framework that allows companies to build in the US under clearer rules.
Stand With Crypto has taken a more directly political approach, framing the bank-backed push for stablecoin rewards as an attempt to protect incumbents from competition.
The group’s campaign aims to show senators that crypto supporters are organized enough to withstand pressure from banks and trade associations.
For pro-crypto lawmakers, the challenge is holding together a broad enough coalition to get the bill out of committee while preserving language that can survive the Senate.
Republicans control the committee, but the broader bill will still need Democratic support to clear the broader Senate floor. That makes the markup both a policy negotiation and an early vote-counting exercise.