After years of regulatory ambiguity, comprehensive U.S. federal crypto legislation appeared imminent. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act passed the House with strong bipartisan support in July 2025, establishing a clear framework for allocating regulatory authority between the SEC and CFTC, creating pathways for institutional participation, and providing the definitional clarity the industry had long sought.^[1] Combined with the earlier passage of the GENIUS Act governing stablecoins, the United States seemed poised to establish the regulatory foundation that would enable institutional capital formation in digital assets at scale.

That momentum came to an abrupt halt in mid-January 2026. Following industry opposition to key provisions in the Senate's amended draft, the Senate Banking Committee postponed its scheduled markup indefinitely.^[2] For institutional allocators and digital asset managers, the delay carries strategic implications that extend well beyond Washington politics. The stalemate reveals underlying tensions between competing interests, clarifies which regulatory issues remain genuinely contentious, and demonstrates how narrow the path to comprehensive federal legislation has become.

From Momentum to Stalemate: What Changed

The House-passed CLARITY Act represented a carefully negotiated compromise addressing the fundamental jurisdictional question that has defined crypto regulation: which federal agency regulates which digital assets? The bill classified digital assets into three categories: digital commodities (primarily CFTC), investment contract assets (primarily SEC), and permitted payment stablecoins (banking regulators). The bill also created registration pathways for digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers.^[3] This framework enjoyed widespread industry support and passed the House 294-134.

The Senate Banking Committee's January 12, 2026 amendment, however, introduced provisions that fractured that consensus. Most significantly, the 278-page draft prohibited digital asset service providers from offering any form of interest or yield solely for holding stablecoin balances, though it allowed activity-based rewards tied to transactions, staking, liquidity provision, or other ecosystem participation.^[4] The distinction proved unworkable for major industry participants. Within 48 hours, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly withdrew support, stating the industry would "rather have no bill than a bad bill."^[5] Hours later, the committee postponed its January 15 markup with no new date announced.^[6]

The Stablecoin Yield Dispute: Economics and Competitive Dynamics

The stablecoin yield restriction sits at the nexus of three powerful interests: crypto platforms seeking revenue diversification, traditional banks protecting deposit market share, and regulators concerned about systemic risk. Using Coinbase as an example, stablecoin-related revenue was projected to exceed $1 billion in 2025, much derived from distribution payments tied to its USDC partnership with Circle.^[7] Provisions restricting such rewards would eliminate a major revenue stream for the nation's largest regulated exchange.

Banking interests framed the issue as competitive fairness and financial stability. Yield-bearing stablecoins held on uninsured platforms could draw deposits away from FDIC-insured institutions, they argued, creating liquidity risks while operating outside traditional banking supervision.^[8] A January 2026 letter from the American Bankers Association's Community Bankers Council to Senate leaders warned that if stablecoin‑related firms were permitted to offer yield on token balances, community banks could eventually lose trillions of dollars in deposits, undermining their ability to lend to local businesses and households. The crypto industry countered that restrictions represented regulatory capture: banks using legislation to handicap competitive products rather than addressing genuine systemic concerns. They further argued that Congress intentionally preserved room for third‑party rewards under GENIUS which made an expansive yield ban under CLARITY illogical. The tension between these competing interests resists easy resolution, with neither side commanding enough pressure to break the deadlock.

The Senate's compromise, permitting activity-based rewards but prohibiting passive yield, satisfied neither camp. Crypto platforms viewed the distinction as unworkable in practice, since determining whether a user's stablecoin balance generates passive versus active returns would create compliance nightmares and litigation risk. Banks remained concerned that any form of yield on stablecoin balances would enable end-runs around deposit regulations. Senator Tim Scott emphasized that negotiations remained ongoing, but the 137 proposed amendments submitted in response to the draft suggest reconciliation will require substantial additional work.^[9]

Implications for Fund Managers: CPO/CTA Registration and Compliance Costs

Beyond headline political battles, the CLARITY Act contains provisions with direct operational implications for digital asset fund managers. Section 103 would expand the definitions of commodity pool operator (CPO) and commodity trading advisor (CTA) to include entities that trade or advise with respect to "digital commodities." Because digital commodities are defined broadly (as digital assets whose value derives from blockchain system use) the provision would capture most spot market digital asset transactions, not merely derivatives.^[10]

Recent practitioner analysis underscores that this relatively short definitional change could be one of CLARITY's most consequential features for private funds. The amended CPO definition would carve out certain actors, such as digital commodity custodians, validators, and commercial users transacting for payments or inventory, but it would not exclude managers of investment funds that buy and sell digital assets for investment purposes. A limited safe harbor would be available for registered investment advisers whose primary business is not acting as CPOs or CTAs, but advisers whose core strategies are centered on digital commodities should assume they will fall squarely within the expanded registration perimeter absent further exemptions in rulemaking.^[11] For digital asset fund managers, the practical question is whether the firm's existing RIA registration and compliance architecture would require supplementation with CFTC registration once CLARITY becomes law. The answer depends on implementation details not yet resolved: whether de minimis thresholds will apply, what exemptions survive rulemaking, and how "digital commodity" gets operationalized in practice. The CFTC's historical approach suggests even incidental exposure could trigger registration requirements, much as the post-Dodd-Frank interpretation treated a single swap transaction as sufficient to qualify a vehicle as a commodity pool.^[12]

What the delay reveals about industry alignment

The CLARITY stalemate also underscores that "the crypto industry" is not a monolith. Exchanges, issuers, DeFi protocols, miners, custodians, and asset managers all sit at different points in the value chain and face different regulatory incentives. Trading platforms whose revenues depend heavily on transaction volume and stablecoin‑related yield share CLARITY's fate in a different way than asset managers whose primary concern is custody clarity, asset‑classification certainty, and predictable registration pathways.

One prominent fault line concerns non‑custodial software and infrastructure. Industry comments on CLARITY's draft developer‑liability language warn that imposing intermediary‑style obligations on open‑source developers, node operators, or other non‑custodial infrastructure providers could chill innovation and push protocol development offshore, without materially improving consumer protection for users who hold assets in self‑custody. Many institutional participants, by contrast, have focused their advocacy on ensuring that centralized platforms that intermediate customer assets are subject to clear, enforceable standards, even as they support a lighter‑touch regime for infrastructure providers that never take possession of client funds.^[13]

For allocators, this fragmentation matters because it reveals whose business models are aligned with durable regulatory principles and whose depend on currently unregulated features such as high‑yield stablecoin products. Managers whose value proposition centers on institutional governance, transparent reporting, and sophisticated risk management are better positioned to adapt to eventual federal standards than those whose economics depend on regulatory gray areas.

Path Forward: Fragmentation, Delay, or Compromise

Three scenarios appear plausible for CLARITY's future. First, negotiations could produce revised language that satisfies key stakeholders, allowing passage in late 2026 or early 2027. Senate Banking leaders have indicated that discussions remain active, but have not committed to a timetable, and the number of open issues suggests that a clean, near‑term compromise is unlikely.^[14] The Senate Agriculture Committee, which has jurisdiction over CFTC-related provisions, scheduled its own markup for late January 2026, suggesting parallel tracks may eventually converge.^[15]

Second, comprehensive market‑structure legislation could fragment into a series of targeted bills: one focused on stablecoin yield and distribution, another on exchange registration and custody, and perhaps a third on tax and reporting issues. A piecemeal approach might prove politically easier, but it risks creating a patchwork of overlapping requirements that differ across asset types and intermediaries, increasing legal complexity for cross‑border managers. Third, the delay could persist well into 2027 as election dynamics make contentious financial‑services legislation harder to advance. In that scenario, "regulation by enforcement" would continue, with the SEC, CFTC, and banking regulators clarifying standards incrementally through no‑action letters, guidance, and case‑by‑case settlements rather than through a single organizing statute. For allocators, this would prolong today's environment: sufficient clarity to support carefully structured institutional strategies, but insufficient certainty to unlock the full universe of potential products.

Each path carries distinct implications for managers. Comprehensive legislation would provide clearer rules of the road but impose tangible registration and reporting burdens. Fragmented bills could require firms to navigate inconsistent obligations across stablecoins, spot markets, derivatives, and custody. A continued drift scenario preserves some flexibility but constrains institutional capital formation, since many allocators remain compliance‑blocked from deploying into unregistered or lightly regulated structures regardless of underlying investment merit.

From Regulatory Clarity to Capital Confidence

The CLARITY Act's present stalemate highlights a core paradox: nearly all stakeholders agree that greater regulatory clarity is necessary, yet consensus on the content of that clarity, especially around yield and developer liability, remains elusive. For institutional investors, the most important question is not whether Washington will eventually legislate, but which managers are most likely to navigate whatever regime emerges without compromising operational integrity or investment discipline.

For institutional market participants, the CLARITY trajectory offers validation rather than alarm. The issues delaying passage, including stablecoin yield mechanics, developer liability, and the scope of CFTC versus SEC oversight, fall unevenly across the industry and tend to impact trading venues and issuers more directly than asset managers operating through traditional fund structures, independent administration, regulated custody, and transparent reporting. When comprehensive federal legislation ultimately arrives, whether in 2026, 2027, or beyond, the transition is likely to favor managers that treated institutional standards as foundational from inception rather than aspirational goals for a more certain future.

‍

-

‍

[1]House Committee on Financial Services, “Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of2025,” H.R. 3633, passed July 17, 2025.

[2]Baker McKenzie, “The CLARITY Act Delay and What It Reveals About U.S. CryptoRegulation,” Blockchain Blog, January 16, 2026.

[3]Arnold & Porter, “Clarifying the CLARITY Act: What To Know About the HouseCrypto Market Structure Bill and Its Path to Law,” Advisory, August 2025.

[4]Davis Wright Tremaine, “Senate Banking Committee Releases Amendment to 2025Responsible Financial Innovation Act Draft,” Financial Services Law Advisor,January 2026.

[5]The Block, “Stablecoin yield fight threatens to sink CLARITY Act as Coinbaseand White House clash,” January 18, 2026.

[6]FinancialContent, “Senate Stalls ‘Clarity Act’ After Coinbase Reversal: TheFuture of US Crypto Regulation in Flux,” January 16, 2026.

[7]S&P Global, cited in The Block, “Stablecoin yield fight threatens to sinkCLARITY Act,” January 18, 2026.

[8]DL News, “Crypto decries stablecoin change in Senate market structure bill,”January 10, 2026.

[9]Davis Wright Tremaine, “Senate Banking Committee Releases Amendment,” January2026.

[10]Reed Smith, “How the CLARITY Act Could Redefine Compliance for Crypto FundManagers and Advisers,” July 23, 2025.

[11]Ibid.

[12]Latham & Watkins, “The CLARITY Act, Treasury Companies, and the (Digital)Commodity Pool,” Global Fintech & Digital Assets Blog, July 29, 2025.

[13]See R. Tamara deSilva, The Crypto Market Bill Explained: Analyzing the CLARITY Act, DeSilva Law Offices (May 31, 2025) (noting the Act’s DeFi exclusion aims toprotect "developers, node operators, and purely technical serviceproviders from being unintentionally swept into regulatory obligations simplyfor providing infrastructure or tools")

[14] BakerMcKenzie, "The CLARITY Act Delay and What It Reveals About U.S. CryptoRegulation," Blockchain Blog, January 16, 2026

[15]BDO, “CLARITY Act + PARITY Act: Digital Asset Tax Update,” January 20, 2026.

‍

<sub>DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are Hivemind’s own views. The information provided herein has been produced and issued by Hivemind Capital Partners UK LLP and/or Hivemind Capital Partners LLC (“Hivemind”) and is being provided for informational purposes only. This document is not to be distributed or reproduced in any way. This document does not constitute or contain an offer to purchase or sell securities. This document is confidential and intended for the person to whom this was delivered. If you have not received this document from Hivemind you are hereby notified that you have received it from a non-authorized source and you are prohibited from reading, using, retaining, disseminating or copying this material without the prior express written consent of Hivemind. Neither Hivemind nor any of its affiliates or representatives makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein or any other written or oral communication transmitted or made to the recipient. The information contained in this document is current as of the date indicated, and Hivemind undertakes no obligation to update, modify or amend this document or to otherwise notify a reader in the event that any matter stated herein changes or subsequently becomes inaccurate.

This document has not been compiled, reviewed, or audited by an independent accountant. Past performance should not be construed as an indicator of future results, and there can be no assurance that historical trends will continue. This document does not include information regarding each investment or investment strategy pursued by the Funds. References to investments included herein should not be construed as a recommendation of any particular investment.

Certain information contained herein may constitute “forward-looking statements,” which can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “project,” “estimate,” “intend,” “continue,” or “believe,” or the negatives thereof, other variations thereon or comparable terminology. All such forward-looking statements are solely statements of opinion, and there is no assurance that they will be predictive of actual events.</sub>

‍