CLARITY Act Stalled. Deposit Question Didn’t.
By: Paul Schaus
September 29, 2026
Years ago, I attended PCBS, Pacific Coast Banking School, and it provided the foundation in banking that started my path into executive management. In the final year you had to write a thesis. Mine was on the debacle that ended in the demise of the FSLIC, the fund that insured savings and loan deposits until the losses consumed it. One of my colleagues, who went to Stonier, wrote his on-money market mutual funds, the upstarts that paid savers the interest Regulation Q forbade banks to pay while Washington debated and the funds grew from next to nothing to more than $200 billion. Two theses, one lesson: when the economics of deposits shift faster than the rules, the industry pays. I thought about those papers on September 15, when the Senate came one vote short, 49 to 50, of advancing the CLARITY Act, because the fight that stalled the bill is the same fight in modern dress: whether nonbank platforms may pay customers for holding their dollars. The bill stalled. The question did not. It moved to agency rule text.
Start with the mechanics, because the headlines overstated the finality. The CLARITY Act, H.R. 3633, the market-structure bill that would assign regulatory lanes for digital assets, passed the House 294 to 134 in July 2025 and advanced through Senate Banking in substitute form in May. What failed on September 15 was cloture on the motion to proceed, the procedural step that lets the Senate even take up a bill, and it failed 49 to 50 with every voting Democrat and four Republicans opposed. That is a blockade, not a burial: Senator Tillis entered a motion to reconsider, preserving a route back. But a route is not votes, the midterm recess is closing the calendar, and even the crypto industry’s own post-mortem, Galaxy Research’s, rates the odds of a rapid revival as very low, an assessment worth noting precisely because it comes from an interested party. On life support is the honest description.
Here is what most coverage missed, and the reason bankers should care more after the failed vote, not less. The dispute that stalled this bill was not about blockchains. It was about the oldest product in banking: interest on deposits. Stablecoins, digital tokens redeemable one-for-one for dollars, are useful for payments, and the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law enacted last year, already prohibits issuers from paying interest on them. The battle inside CLARITY was over the loophole: rewards. If an exchange, an affiliate, or a third party pays you for holding a stablecoin balance, funded directly or indirectly by the issuer, is that a payment incentive, or is it deposit interest wearing a costume?
The banking industry’s position has been more sophisticated than “kill the bill,” and its own statements prove it. After the vote, eight banking trade groups, the ABA, the Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Services Forum, and ICBA among them, jointly reaffirmed that “the nation’s banks continue to support creating a strong, durable regulatory framework for digital assets” while calling for targeted changes to stablecoin yield policy. Note who signed: this spans community banks and money-center institutions, a coalition breadth that this industry rarely produces. Our team at CCG Catalyst summarizes what the banks are asking for:
| Bankers' objective | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Prevent interest-like payments on stablecoin holdings | Stop rewards tied to holding a balance, not every genuine transaction incentive |
| Close the indirect-payment routes | Apply the restriction to issuers, affiliates, exchanges, and third parties, not the issuer alone |
| Protect deposits before they leave | Put enforceable restrictions in statute rather than intervene after the harm |
| Comparable financial-crime controls | Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering duties for digital asset intermediaries |
| Preserve room for banks to participate | Issuance, custody, partnerships, and tokenized deposits inside a durable framework |
The other side conceded more than it admits and less than the banks wanted. In May, a negotiated compromise drew the line the whole fight turns on: rewards “economically or functionally equivalent” to deposit interest restricted, rewards based on genuine platform usage preserved. Coinbase’s chief policy officer put the industry’s counter-thesis in six words in August: “But stablecoins aren’t bank deposits.” Its chief executive has called the deposit-flight argument a “boogeyman” and challenged banks to compete on a level playing field. My reading, having watched deposit competition for decades: both things can be true. Most stablecoin balances today are not fleeing bank deposits, and a nonbank instrument that pays you for holding dollar balances, at scale, with no reserve requirement, no CRA obligation, and no examiner, is exactly the kind of lopsidedness that starts small and gets renamed “the market” once it is too big to legislate. This industry ran that experiment once. It was called Regulation Q, and the money market funds won it.
The failed cloture vote did not pause this question. It relocated it, and the banking industry, to its credit, was already working the second front. In May, BPI, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the Financial Services Forum asked the OCC to address exactly the indirect-payment evasion the legislation could not close. The OCC’s GENIUS Act implementation proposal answers with the most important twelve words in this debate: a rebuttable presumption that an issuer paying an affiliate or related third party, which then pays yield to stablecoin holders, is an impermissible indirect payment. In plain English, the arrangement is presumed illegal unless the issuer proves otherwise. The FDIC has its own GENIUS rulemaking out, and Treasury’s FinCEN has proposed the illicit-finance rules, which addresses the banks' fourth objective through the agency channel too.
Do not mistake the agencies for allies, though. Two days after the cloture vote, the SEC issued a temporary Innovation Exemption to facilitate trading of tokenized stock, a concrete signal that the market regulators intend to keep enabling digital asset markets whether or not Congress acts. The agencies are implementing their statutes, not protecting anyone’s franchise. The rewards question will be settled in the wording of the OCC’s final rule, in the design of individual programs, and eventually in litigation over how far “indirect” reaches, and a comment letter filed now is worth more than a press release filed later.
While attention fixed on the bill that stalled, the law already on the books kept running. Treasury has identified January 18, 2027 as the expected general effective date of the GENIUS Act, under a statutory formula that does not wait for the agencies to finish their rules. The relief provision for pending applications is discretionary, not automatic, so no institution should plan on a grace period it has not been granted. And a second clock sits behind the first: from July 2028, digital asset platforms generally may not offer payment stablecoins to US customers outside the permitted framework. For any bank contemplating issuance, custody, stablecoin partnerships, or tokenized deposits, the planning date is January, and the correct posture is operating readiness, not application filed.
One more development bankers should register, because it is happening in your market whether you engage or not: Coinbase has partnered with Moov and Stablecore to sell stablecoin payments, custody, and infrastructure directly to community and regional banks and credit unions. The same company contesting your trade associations in Washington is calling on your institution as a vendor. That is not hypocrisy, it is strategy, and it deserves the same diligence discipline as any other vendor decision: contract terms, exit rights, and a clear answer on where the deposits sit.
Four moves, none requires a prediction about the Senate. First, put your institution’s voice into the agency record: the OCC and FDIC comment files on GENIUS implementation are where the rewards boundary is being drawn, and the rebuttable presumption’s final wording matters more to your deposit base than any floor vote this year. Second, treat January 18, 2027 as an operating-readiness date if digital asset activity is anywhere in your plan, and confirm rather than assume any transition relief. Third, decide your offense: the framework the banking industry says it supports will permit bank issuance, custody, and tokenized deposits, and the institutions that have decided what they want from it will shape their examiners' expectations instead of inheriting them. Fourth, when the digital asset vendors call, and they are calling on community banks now, run the vendor playbook I have been writing about all year: roadmap in writing, terms in the contract, dependence understood before it is created.
My final comment: the Senate vote bought the banking industry time, and time is the one asset this industry consistently wastes. The banks' own joint statement says they want a durable framework, and I believe they mean it, because the alternative to a framework is not the status quo, it is the agencies and the markets deciding piecemeal while the deposit question compounds. One vote short is not a victory. It is a deadline extension, and the institutions that use it, on the comment file, on the readiness clock, and on their own digital asset strategy, will be the ones that still control their answer when the question comes back. It always comes back. The money market funds taught this industry that lesson once, and the tuition was $200 billion.
CCG Catalyst advises banks, credit unions, and fintech companies on digital asset strategy, regulatory readiness, and vendor selection. If your institution is working out its answer to the deposit question, reach out to our team at www.ccgcatalyst.com.
See our latest announcement: CCG Catalyst’s Paul Schaus Named a 2026 Top Consultant by Consulting Magazine
By: Paul Schaus | Founder & Managing Partner, CCG Catalyst Consulting
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article represent the perspective of CCG Catalyst Consulting based on our direct experience advising financial institutions. This commentary is intended to stimulate industry discussion and does not constitute legal, accounting, or regulatory advice.
