CLARITY Act risks slipping as housing fight stalls Senate crypto markup

The CLARITY Act’s next problem is whether Senate Republicans can keep the crypto market structure bill on schedule while a housing dispute and unresolved DeFi protections pull the markup into a narrower window. The act's markup has moved past the stablecoin yield standoff to Sen. John Kennedy's housing frustration, unresolved protections for software developers, and the Republican vote math that Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott still needs to close. The Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise that broke the yield deadlock allows stablecoin rewards tied to platform usage and activity while banning passive yield on idle balances, keeping crypto firms from replicating high-yield savings accounts. Scott now needs to convert that policy win into a coalition one. He has said publicly that he wants “thirteen of thirteen Republicans” before moving to a bipartisan markup in May. Punchbowl reported that Kennedy is withholding support partly because of frustration with the White House over the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Kennedy's Build Now Act cleared the Senate inside that package, the House passed its own version, and bicameral reconciliation is unfinished. Why this matters The risk for crypto is timing. A delayed markup would leave less room for Senate floor action, House coordination, and final negotiations before election-year politics make a broad market structure bill harder to move. His leverage over the CLARITY Act timeline is positional, as he holds a vote Scott needs, and his price is movement on housing that Scott cannot deliver unilaterally. Issue Where it stands now Who matters most Why it matters for markup Stablecoin yield Main deadlock eased by the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise: rewards tied to usage/activity allowed, passive yield on idle balances barred Tillis, Alsobrooks, bank lobby, crypto firms Removes the most visible policy fight, but does not by itself secure a markup Kennedy housing frustration Still an active political complication tied to unfinished bicameral work on the ROAD to Housing Act / Build Now Act Sen. John Kennedy, House leadership, White House Kennedy holds a vote Scott needs, giving a non-crypto issue leverage over the crypto timeline Republican vote math Scott has said he wants all 13 Banking Republicans before moving to bipartisan markup Tim Scott and the 13 Senate Banking Republicans Full GOP unity makes markup easier and helps attract Democratic support later Software-developer protections Still unresolved; the BRCA / Section 1960 language remains under negotiation Senate Banking negotiators, Judiciary voices, crypto industry One of the biggest remaining substance fights and a possible source of delay Ethics / AML concerns Still live and capable of reopening opposition even after the yield compromise Democrats, law enforcement, banking critics Could slow or narrow support even if Republicans unify Calendar / floor time Window is tightening; delay past mid-May makes a summer path harder Senate leadership, committee staff, House counterparts Every week of slippage compresses markup, floor scheduling, House coordination, and conference time From one fight to several Banks feared issuers paying yield on idle balances would pull deposits out of the traditional system, while crypto firms wanted yield as a product feature. The compromise resolved that dispute by separating activity-based rewards from passive accumulation. Banks still worry privately that the “economically or functionally equivalent” clause leaves room for workarounds, but the public language has held enough for Scott to move past it. Galaxy's April update identified DeFi provisions, protections for noncustodial software developers, ethics provisions, and full Republican committee support as still-open items . This cluster requires different negotiations with different stakeholders, running simultaneously against a tightening calendar. Software developer protections are technically the most consequential open item and publicly the least visible. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act framework and related Section 1960 language would carve out noncustodial software developers from certain compliance requirements , a provision the crypto industry considers essential to keeping DeFi development onshore. Law enforcement raised objections to earlier versions of this language, arguing that broad carve-outs could weaken enforcement of money transmitters and create AML blind spots. Senate Banking Republicans have kept defending the text publicly , which is itself evidence that the fight is still alive. The dispute centers on where Congress draws the line between building software and operating a financial service. That distinction carries real consequences because a protocol's developer and its operator can be the same person or entirely different parties, and compliance obligations are governed by different rules depending on that classification. An infographic contrasts noncustodial software developers with financial intermedia