Lawmakers in Washington are reportedly closing in on a final agreement on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a bill intended to establish a more complete regulatory framework for the crypto sector in the United States. According to reporting from CoinDesk citing sources referenced by JPMorgan, the negotiations have moved into a late stage, with most major disagreements already addressed and only a small number of unresolved points still under discussion.
One senior policy official said the list of contentious issues has narrowed dramatically, falling from roughly 12 topics to only 2 or 3. That shift suggests a meaningful move toward consensus after years of argument over how digital assets should be governed in the U.S. For an industry that has long operated under fragmented and overlapping rules, even this degree of legislative convergence is significant.
At the heart of the bill is a foundational question that has shaped nearly every major crypto policy debate in the country: how authority over digital assets should be divided among federal regulators. The legislation 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 decentralized finance, or DeFi, platforms should be treated under existing financial law.
That matters because the current environment has often left market participants navigating uncertainty. Projects, exchanges, brokers, and stablecoin issuers have faced a patchwork of interpretations rather than one unified structure. Supporters of the bill argue that regulatory clarity would make it easier for firms to launch products, plan compliance, and allocate capital without having to guess how a regulator may interpret a given digital asset after the fact.
Lawmakers and industry participants have framed the measure as a critical step toward bringing certainty to the crypto market. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials have urged Congress to act, warning that continued delay could push innovation and investment overseas, especially to jurisdictions where digital asset rules are more clearly defined. In that sense, this bill is not only about compliance. It is also about whether the United States wants to remain competitive in the global race to shape the future of blockchain-based finance.
One of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations has been whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer crypto yield, or yield-like rewards, to users. This question has exposed a clear divide between crypto-native firms and traditional banks. Crypto companies generally want flexibility to design products that remain competitive and useful on-chain. Banks, by contrast, argue that yield-bearing stablecoins could function too much like deposit-taking products without being subject to the same protections as insured bank accounts.
Recent talks appear to have produced a compromise. Under the emerging framework, passive yield would be prohibited, but activity-based rewards tied to payments and platform usage would still be allowed. Policymakers involved in the discussions reportedly see this as a middle-ground solution. It aims to address banking-sector concerns about unregulated deposit substitutes, while still leaving room for the digital asset industry to build incentive models around real network or platform activity.
Stablecoin yield disputes may be approaching a resolution
The argument over stablecoin yield has unfolded alongside a broader policy clash about the relationship between crypto innovation, consumer returns, and the traditional banking system. A White House economic analysis concluded that banning yield would likely have only a limited effect on bank lending, while reducing returns for consumers. In other words, the analysis suggested that a strict prohibition might impose a direct cost on users without necessarily delivering a proportionate financial-stability benefit.
The American Bankers Association, however, pushed back against that view. The group argued that the White House analysis did not adequately capture long-term risks. Its warning was that yield-bearing stablecoins could attract deposits away from community banks and raise funding costs for local lenders. For smaller institutions that rely heavily on deposits to support regional lending, that concern is not theoretical. It goes to the core of how those institutions fund their operations and serve their local economies.
Despite these tensions, JPMorgan said the developing compromise could still attract support from both sides. The bank pointed to growing alignment on several major provisions beyond the stablecoin issue itself. These reportedly include anti-money laundering standards, custody requirements, and operational rules for exchanges and brokers. That is an important detail because it shows the negotiations are no longer stuck at the level of broad principle. They are increasingly about the precise design of a functioning regulatory regime.
Momentum for the bill has also been reinforced by earlier legislative progress. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a version of the measure in 2025 with bipartisan support. Senate negotiators are now working to finalize the wording ahead of a potential committee markup. That sequence matters. It indicates that the legislation has already moved beyond abstract policy discussion and into a more advanced stage of the formal lawmaking process.
Even so, the final legislative text has not yet been released, and no vote has been scheduled. Timing may prove critical as the 2026 midterm elections draw closer. If control of Congress changes, legislative priorities could shift as well, and crypto policy might lose momentum or face renewed delays. For the digital asset industry, that means the current progress is encouraging but not definitive. The real test will be whether lawmakers can publish the final text, move it through committee, and secure votes before the political window narrows.
If the bill is ultimately enacted, it could become one of the most consequential pieces of U.S. crypto legislation in years. It would not simply settle a turf battle between the SEC and the CFTC. It could also set the terms under which tokens are classified, stablecoin products are structured, and DeFi platforms are assessed under federal law. That kind of legal clarity would shape market structure, compliance strategy, and capital formation across the entire American crypto ecosystem.
For now, the key takeaway is that negotiations appear to be nearing the finish line, but the finish line has not yet been crossed. The narrowing of disputed topics, the emergence of a compromise on stablecoin rewards, and the earlier House passage in 2025 all point to real progress. Still, until the final text is released and a vote is scheduled, the legislation remains a developing story rather than a completed regulatory settlement.