Why banks should stop worrying and learn to love the Clarity Act

Proponents say the Clarity Act would establish a national rulebook for cryptoassets, delineating oversight responsibilities for exchanges, brokers, issuers and other intermediaries. Supporters argue this federal framework could lower legal uncertainty that now leaves digital-asset policy subject to the changing stances of regulators and presidential administrations. Some banking groups have pushed back, warning the bill could allow stablecoin users to receive rewards through intermediaries that resemble interest and thereby siphon deposits from banks. Tapscott notes that the GENIUS Act already prevents stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly, and that the remaining concern focuses on rewards distributed by exchanges, affiliates, and other intermediaries. He cites estimates from the White House Council of Economic Advisers suggesting that banning stablecoin yield would raise aggregate bank lending by only about 0.02%, with a 0.026% effect for community banks, and references other empirical work that finds no material impact on community bank deposits. Tapscott also highlights the political oddity in opposition: some progressives who have criticized large financial institutions now defend incumbents’ competitive positions, while some Republicans traditionally favorable to open markets appear willing to restrict crypto competition. He points to growing buy-in from large financial firms — BlackRock, Fidelity, and Goldman Sachs among those supporting Clarity — and to plans announced on September 1 by a group of 21 institutions, including Bank of America, Citi, and Deutsche Bank, to issue a U.S. dollar stablecoin targeted for first-half 2027. Without congressional action, Tapscott warns, policymakers will leave consequential structural decisions to regulators, whose decisions can shift with administrations; he cites the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s unusually fast preliminary approval in August of World Liberty Trust Company, affiliated with the Trump family's World Liberty Financial, as an example. He argues that clear rules would remove the regulatory ambiguity that has acted as an inadvertent moat for many crypto startups, enabling large banks and other incumbents — with vast capital, extensive customer networks, global distribution, risk management expertise and trusted brands — to enter and compete in digital-asset markets.