President Trump Says Crypto Market Structure Bill Will Pass Soon

Crypto market structure bill stalls on stablecoin yield carveouts

The dispute is not simply about a number on a screen. It is about who gets to hold cash-like balances in a regulated way, and who captures the spread between what reserves earn and what users receive.

Banks have argued that interest-like stablecoin rewards could pull deposits out of the banking system, raising funding costs and, in stress scenarios, making liquidity management harder. Crypto advocates counter that if banks want to keep balances, they should compete by offering compliant products instead of using legislation to cap yield-like features in competing rails, a dynamic we explored in our banking and stablecoin coverage.

The White House has been trying to broker a compromise between banking and crypto representatives, including meetings focused on stablecoin yield, according to Crypto in America. The talks have overlapped with criticism from crypto executives and lobbying from banks and trade groups, and the impasse has become a practical choke point for market structure momentum.

One reason the yield fight is sticky is that stablecoins sit at the center of trading and settlement. Stablecoin rules are not just about payments, they are about the cash leg of almost every crypto market. The St. Louis Fed, for example, has highlighted how U.S. stablecoin rules can shape what kinds of “interest” or “yield” offers exist on top of tokens, and where that activity migrates, in its GENIUS Act explainer.

CLARITY Act: SEC vs CFTC split and DeFi scope

The CLARITY Act, H.R. 3633, is the most developed public text for the market structure debate, and it is still the reference point for how a final U.S. framework might define crypto categories and registration obligations. The current House text is published on GovInfo.

In plain English, market structure is about assigning responsibility. Firms want to know whether a token and its spot market falls under a securities framework, a commodities-style framework, or some hybrid, and what happens to exchanges and brokers that need a single registration lane. That is the uncertainty that keeps resurfacing in Washington as policy deadlines slip.

The Senate’s delays have also pulled other actors into the debate. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s comments on stablecoin rewards and deposit risk put the issue on a wider political stage, which we covered in our report on the White House negotiations and industry pushback.

Senate Banking calendar and White House talks

The next procedural catalyst is straightforward: a posted markup date. The Senate Banking Committee has not consistently provided a reliable timeline for market structure, so the committee’s markups calendar is the clearest public checkpoint.

The second catalyst is text. If negotiators produce updated language that draws a line between issuer-paid yield and platform-funded rewards, and explains what counts as “active use” versus passive holding, it can narrow the gap enough to restart committee action. Without that, the debate risks remaining a fight over protecting deposit franchises rather than a plan to build competitive, compliant on-chain dollar rails.

For now, what remains unknown is whether negotiators can produce compromise language that keeps stablecoins usable without turning rewards into a de facto ban. Until a schedule is posted, traders will be left watching headlines and internal deadlines rather than a predictable legislative calendar.