《Clarity Act》長桌談判突然暫停，Coinbase為何臨陣倒戈？

The long-standing negotiations over US cryptocurrency regulation legislation have once again cooled off. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, originally scheduled for line-by-line review by the Senate Banking Committee on January 15, was indefinitely postponed at the last minute. This months-long, multi-party negotiation, which brought together various interests, was forced to pause just before the review due to the sudden opposition from Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the US, and irreconcilable differences among different factions.

Regulatory Legislation Faces Further Setbacks: Sudden Pause in Mid-January

This bill, which concerns the structure of the US cryptocurrency market, was initially met with considerable support. Senate Banking Committee Chairman and Republican Senator Tim Scott expressed optimism multiple times, emphasizing that this was “the result of serious bipartisan negotiations over several months,” incorporating voices from innovators, investors, and law enforcement agencies. The goal was to establish clear rules that protect consumers, strengthen national security, and maintain America’s leadership in the global financial system.

However, the disagreements among various parties at the long table were far more profound than surface appearances suggested. In his postponement statement, Tim Scott did not disclose a new review date but indirectly acknowledged that negotiations were “extremely challenging.” This indicates that, in this industry-future-defining negotiation, seemingly close consensus still harbors significant gaps.

Coinbase’s Strategic Shift: From Supporter to Opponent

The most dramatic turn occurred on the eve of the review. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong launched a full-scale attack on the social platform X, announcing the withdrawal of support for the bill and directly criticizing the new draft as “full of loopholes.” Once a key participant in the long-table negotiations, he has now become a public opponent of the bill, and his rapid change and resolute stance have caused industry shock.

Armstrong’s reasons for opposition cover multiple dimensions: the draft effectively restricts the development of “tokenized stocks”; sets prohibitive clauses against DeFi; expands government access to personal financial records; weakens the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)’s regulatory authority; and limits stablecoin yield mechanisms. In his view, this bill, originally intended to establish order, is actually highly destructive to the industry.

Multi-Party Power Struggles at the Long Table: Banks, Crypto Circles, Political Forces

Coinbase’s opposition is not unfounded. In this long-table negotiation, the resistance from the banking sector was stronger than expected. According to informed sources, the opposition from banks to the bill’s content was so intense that Tim Scott could not guarantee that the entire Republican camp would vote in favor. This indicates significant internal divisions within the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, political battles between Democrats and the White House have become another major obstacle. Democratic lawmakers insist on including strict “ethics clauses” in the bill, restricting government officials from profiting from the cryptocurrency industry. The broader interpretation is that this proposal directly targets Trump and his family’s crypto ventures (such as the recently active World Liberty Financial). However, these ethical restrictions faced repeated resistance from the White House during negotiations, as they would directly impact its own crypto strategies.

Tim Scott ultimately handed the ethics issue over to the Senate Ethics Committee, effectively putting a pause on this political dispute, but also reflecting the White House’s substantial influence in this long-table negotiation.

Controversial Focus and Political Under Currents: Stablecoin Yield Mechanisms as a Key

The stablecoin yield mechanism has become the most explosive issue in the long-table negotiations. Whether this can be resolved will directly influence the Republican Party’s unified stance. The strong opposition from the banking sector reflects fundamental concerns from traditional finance about the innovation of cryptocurrencies—competition from digital asset yields.

Beyond economic interests, political factors also profoundly influence this negotiation. The Democrats’ ethics clause proposal essentially plays a political card at the long table. This has transformed the regulatory legislation from a purely industry issue into a political bargaining tool, further complicating the negotiation process.

Outlook for Regulation: Industry Investment Faces Uncertainty

The cryptocurrency industry has paid a heavy price for this moment—years of pouring astronomical amounts into political donations and lobbying resources. The original hope was that the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act could become a milestone for US regulatory compliance, but now it has faltered just before the finish line.

The Senate Agriculture Committee has also postponed related legislation to the end of the month for review. In theory, both committees still have a chance to merge and pass the bill. However, the setback faced by the Banking Committee undoubtedly casts a shadow over the future of US crypto legislation. Whether negotiations at the long table can restart, and whether all parties can find a new balance, will determine the future direction of US cryptocurrency regulation. In this politically charged long-table showdown, each delay signifies an accumulation of further uncertainty.