Last updated: 9 November 2026. We update this page as the bill moves.
The US Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act on 15 September 2026. A cloture vote to begin debate fell 49–50, well short of the 60 votes needed.
The bill’s rules on stablecoin yield were one of the two big sticking points. The draft would ban interest-like payments on idle stablecoin balances while allowing rewards tied to activity. This page explains what those rules say, why banks and crypto firms fought over them, and what happens next.
Table of Contents
Where things stand
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17 Jul 2025 | House passes the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (H.R. 3633), 294–134 |
| 12 Jan 2026 | Senate Banking Committee publishes a 278-page draft barring yield on simply holding stablecoins |
| 17 Mar 2026 | SEC and CFTC issue a joint interpretation on crypto assets |
| 28 Mar 2026 | Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks announce an agreement in principle with the White House on yield |
| 1 May 2026 | Compromise yield text is released |
| 12 May 2026 | Senate Banking publishes a 309-page bill text |
| 14 May 2026 | Senate Banking advances the bill 15–9; all 13 Republicans and two Democrats vote yes |
| 1 Jun 2026 | Bill placed on the Senate calendar (Calendar No. 423) |
| 15 Sep 2026 | Cloture on the motion to proceed fails, 49–50 |
| 20 Oct 2026 | Comment period closes on the SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets |
| 3 Nov 2026 | US midterm elections |
What the CLARITY Act says about stablecoin yield
The Senate text separates two kinds of payment to people who hold stablecoins:
- Passive yield is banned. US-regulated crypto platforms could not pay savings-account-style interest just for holding a stablecoin balance.
- Activity-based rewards are allowed. Platforms could still offer rewards linked to using the stablecoin, such as payments, platform activity, loyalty schemes and trading incentives.
Commentators refer to this as Section 404 of the bill. The line between the two has stayed the same from the January draft through the May text. Most of the negotiation was about where that line sits: the May compromise bars rewards that work like interest in substance, so a platform can’t relabel interest as a “reward”.
Why banks and crypto firms disagree
Banks argue that stablecoins paying anything like interest would pull deposits away from them, especially from community banks, and reduce the money they can lend. Banking groups put the deposits at risk at $1.3 trillion and said after the vote that they would keep fighting rewards.
Crypto firms, led by Coinbase, argue that rewards are a normal feature of a payments product and that banning them protects banks from competition. Coinbase rejected earlier versions of the compromise before the May deal.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated in April 2026 that a yield ban would increase bank lending by $2.1 billion, at a net welfare cost of $800 million. In other words, the ban would do more harm than good overall.
Why the Senate vote failed
The 15 September vote failed mainly over ethics language covering officials’ crypto holdings. Democrats said the draft did not effectively cover the president and his family. Republicans said they had already made more than 100 revisions at Democrats’ request. Stablecoin yield, which had stalled talks in April, was also still unresolved.
Senator Thom Tillis voted no so that he could enter a motion to reconsider. That keeps a procedural route open to bring the bill back.
What happens next
A lame-duck attempt, or nothing this Congress. The Senate’s autumn work period ran from 5 October to 6 November, into the 3 November midterms. As of 9 November we have found no new floor vote scheduled. The remaining window is the lame-duck session before the new Congress is sworn in in January 2027. Senator Cynthia Lummis, the bill’s lead Republican author in the Senate, called it dead after the September vote. Senator Tillis’s motion to reconsider still keeps a procedural route open. Even if the Senate passed it, the Senate and House versions would have to be reconciled before the President could sign.
Regulators act instead. The SEC proposed “Regulation Crypto Assets” on 18 August 2026; comments closed on 20 October. On 17 September the CFTC sent its own crypto rule proposal to the White House budget office for review. Agency rules can’t give the federal pre-emption of state law that the CLARITY Act was meant to provide.
Yield stays in limbo. The GENIUS Act already bars stablecoin issuers from paying interest just for holding a coin. Whether exchanges and other third parties can pass rewards on stays a matter of agency interpretation until Congress acts.
What it means for UK readers
The CLARITY Act would be US law and would not apply to UK platforms directly. It still matters, because most stablecoin trading is in US-dollar coins such as USDC, and the issuers and exchanges behind them are shaped by US rules.
A US ban on passive yield would make “earn interest on your stablecoins” offers harder to justify anywhere. If you are being offered yield on stablecoins today, treat it as a risk product, not a savings account. Our guide to high-interest savings accounts covers regulated alternatives. Our explainer on paying abroad with a stablecoin card covers the everyday-use side.
Related coverage
- SEC and CFTC issue joint crypto guidance
- SEC sends “Regulation Crypto” proposal to the White House
- 11 firms secure federal crypto charters
- What is DeFi?
FAQ
Does the CLARITY Act ban stablecoin rewards?
No. It would ban passive, interest-like yield on idle balances but allow rewards tied to activity such as payments, loyalty programmes and platform use.
Has the CLARITY Act passed?
No. The House passed its version in July 2025. A Senate cloture vote failed 49–50 on 15 September 2026, and the bill has not become law.
Why do banks oppose stablecoin yield?
They argue that interest-paying stablecoins would draw deposits out of banks, particularly community banks, and reduce lending.
Could the CLARITY Act still pass in 2026?
It is now unlikely. The only window left in this Congress is the lame-duck session after the 3 November midterms. Senator Tillis’s motion to reconsider keeps a procedural route open.
Sources: Congress.gov, H.R. 3633; Latham & Watkins crypto policy tracker; Orrick, 2 Oct 2026; FinTech Weekly; White House CEA, 8 Apr 2026; AMINA Bank; The Banker, 16 Sep 2026; FinTech Weekly tracker; Troutman Pepper Locke.
Recent Comments