The post Take It or Fight It? Clarity Act Has Crypto Divided Into 2 Camps appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
The Clarity Act’s stablecoin yield ban has drawn loud opposition from some of the biggest names in crypto. But not everyone is unhappy with it, and the divide says more about business models than it does about the bill itself.
Coinbase once again told Senate offices it cannot support the latest draft of the Clarity Act, citing significant concerns over the stablecoin yield language. It is the second time the company has rejected the bill.
Crypto Banter founder Ran Neuner publicly backed that stance, arguing the restrictions are designed to protect a banking system that had years to innovate and chose not to. Their position is straightforward: the banks pushed for a yield ban, the banks got one, and crypto lost.
Frax Finance founder Sam Kazemian sees it differently.
This Is Politics. Crypto Isn’t Used to That.
Speaking on The Rollup’s Stabled Up podcast this week, Kazemian described the yield compromise as one step in a much longer political process, not a final verdict. His view is that the crypto industry is reacting to it as if the conversation is over, when it is really just getting started.
“The crypto industry is not used to the fact that this stuff is part of politics, an ongoing process, not a one-and-done thing,” he said.
His recommendation is to accept the current wording, pass the broader bill, and come back to the yield debate in the next legislative cycle. The bigger win, in his view, is getting crypto market structure written into law.
Regulatory guidance from the SEC or CFTC can be reversed by the next administration with very little friction. A passed law is much harder to undo.
Why Tether and DeFi Teams May Not Be Worried
Kazemian’s more specific argument is that the yield ban does not hurt everyone equally, and some players are quietly in a stronger position because of it.
Tether has never paid passive yield to holders. Its model does not rely on passing Treasury returns to users, so the ban changes nothing for it. What it does change is the ability of rivals to close the gap by offering yield through platform agreements. In that sense, the current wording makes Tether’s competitive position stronger, not weaker.
For DeFi-native teams, the activity-based yield carveout that survived the compromise is already the model they have been building around, which means the ban changes very little about how they operate.
Why Armstrong’s Position Makes Sense Too
The disagreement between Kazemian and Armstrong is not really about principle. It is about exposure.
Stablecoin revenue made up roughly 19% of Coinbase’s total revenue in Q3 2025.
Also Read: Top 2 Altcoins Institutions Are Buying Before the Clarity Act
The Clarity Act’s ban on anything economically equivalent to deposit interest targets that structure directly. When Armstrong said earlier this year that Coinbase would rather have no bill than a bad one, there was a specific revenue line behind that statement.
That is why the same bill reads as a problem for one camp and an opportunity for the other.
The Deadline Both Sides Are Ignoring
Kazemian acknowledged that Armstrong is the loudest voice on the crypto side of this debate, but made a point that has not received enough attention. Armstrong does not control the outcome. Senators do, and they are balancing pressure from both the banking lobby and the crypto industry simultaneously.
The more pressing issue is the Senate calendar.
If the Clarity Act does not pass before Congress heads into recess ahead of the midterm cycle, the bill is unlikely to move until 2027. Polymarket currently prices the odds of it being signed into law this year at 49%. The Senate Banking Committee markup is targeted for the second half of April, after Easter recess ends on April 13.
Kazemian’s case is simple: take the deal now and fight the yield language again in the next cycle. Armstrong’s case is equally simple: the current text is not acceptable. Both positions are rational given what each company has at stake.
