Lawmakers in Washington are reportedly closing in on a final agreement for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a proposal that would create a broad regulatory framework for the U.S. crypto industry. According to CoinDesk, citing JPMorgan sources, negotiations have entered a late phase, and most of the major disagreements have already been narrowed or resolved.
One senior policy official said the list of contentious issues has shrunk from around 12 topics to only 2 or 3. That is a meaningful shift after years of debate over how digital assets should be regulated in the United States. For the crypto sector, which has operated under a patchwork of interpretations and agency actions, that kind of narrowing suggests Congress may finally be moving toward a usable and durable framework.
The central issue in the legislation is the division of authority between federal regulators. The bill is expected to formalize jurisdictional boundaries between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC. It would also clarify how tokens, stablecoins, and DeFi platforms should be treated under existing financial law, an area that has remained unsettled for years.
Lawmakers and industry participants have framed the proposal as a critical step toward regulatory certainty. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials have urged Congress to act, warning that continued delays could push innovation, talent, and capital toward foreign markets where rules are clearer. That argument has become more urgent as global jurisdictions continue refining their own digital asset regimes.
One of the most politically sensitive questions in the negotiations has been whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield or yield-like rewards to users. That debate has exposed a direct divide between crypto firms and traditional banks. Crypto companies want room for product innovation, while banks argue that yield-bearing stablecoins could mimic deposit-taking activity without the same protections that apply to insured bank accounts.
Stablecoin yield disputes may be nearing a settlement
The disagreement over stablecoin yield has unfolded alongside a broader policy clash about market structure and financial stability. A White House economic analysis concluded that banning yield would likely have only a limited effect on bank lending, while at the same time reducing returns for consumers. In practical terms, that analysis suggested a broad ban might impose a cost on users without delivering a major banking-system benefit.
The American Bankers Association pushed back against that conclusion. It argued that the White House analysis failed to capture longer-term risks, especially the possibility that yield-bearing stablecoins could gradually pull deposits away from community banks. If that happened, the association warned, local lenders could face higher funding costs, which in turn might weaken their ability to provide credit in regional economies.
Despite those tensions, recent talks have produced an emerging compromise. Under the framework now being discussed, passive yield would be prohibited, but activity-based rewards tied to payments, platform usage, or similar user actions could still be allowed. Policymakers involved in the discussions have described this approach as an attempt to address bank concerns about quasi-deposit products while still preserving some flexibility for digital asset businesses.
JPMorgan said this compromise could attract support from both sides. The bank also pointed to growing alignment on other major provisions beyond the yield question. These include anti-money laundering standards, custody requirements, and operational rules for exchanges and brokers. Those provisions matter because they shape not only product design, but also the basic compliance architecture of the broader crypto market.
Momentum has been reinforced by earlier legislative progress. The House of Representatives passed a version of the bill in 2025 with bipartisan support, giving the measure an institutional foundation rather than leaving it as a purely theoretical proposal. Senate negotiators are now working to finalize the language ahead of a possible committee markup, which would be the next major procedural step.
Even so, the final text has not yet been released, and no vote has been scheduled. Timing could be decisive as the 2026 midterm elections approach. If control of Congress changes, legislative priorities may shift as well, potentially slowing or reshaping crypto policy efforts. That means the current negotiation window is important not only for the substance of the bill, but also for its chances of becoming law before the political landscape changes.