Cody Carbone, a proponent of the cryptocurrency sector, has reaffirmed his plea for lawmakers to advance the CLARITY Act amidst ongoing discussions in the Senate, with no scheduled date for a vote.
Summary
- Carbone highlighted that the CLARITY Act could significantly lower payment and transaction expenses in the cryptocurrency realm.
- Opposition to the legislation is emerging from anti-trafficking advocates and sectors within the gambling industry due to regulatory concerns.
- Ric Edelman stated that up to 95% of institutions currently lacking crypto involvement could enter the market if the CLARITY Act is passed.
Carbone, who is the CEO of The Digital Chamber, testified before the Senate Banking Committee on issues of affordability, noting that digital assets can alleviate consumer costs via faster transactions, lower payment fees, and better access to financial resources.
During his remarks in the hearing titled The Affordability Agenda, Carbone argued that blockchain-based financial services could enhance competition with traditional payment systems and facilitate the transfer of money and assets. However, most senators present did not directly address his cryptocurrency claims.
Among the few who did engage, Senator Jim Banks asked about the costs associated with international remittances and compared stablecoins pegged to the U.S. dollar with existing payment methods.
Meanwhile, Senator John Kennedy expressed general support for cryptocurrencies but implied that digital assets are not the primary drivers of the nation’s affordability challenges.
Carbone’s testimony corresponds with Senate discussions on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, commonly known as the CLARITY Act, aimed at establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets in the U.S. Although the bill is anticipated to be discussed soon, Senate leadership has yet to set a date for a floor vote.
Senate debate extends beyond market structure
New concerns have emerged as senators debate the legislation. On June 23, the Alliance to End Human Trafficking (AEHT) urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to reassess Section 604 of the bill.
In a letter addressed to lawmakers, the AEHT argued that this provision, which includes the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, could impair authorities in tracking financial activities related to crimes, including human trafficking.
The organization advocates for stronger anti-money laundering protections to be included before the bill proceeds. These issues add to ongoing conversations in Congress about ethics provisions that some lawmakers believe should be part of the final legislation.
Additionally, pressure has come from beyond the cryptocurrency sector. Organizations in the gambling industry have called on the Senate to clarify that the legislation will not expand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority over sports betting via prediction market platforms.
This ongoing debate follows a long-standing conflict between the CFTC and prediction market operators like Kalshi and Polymarket, with the regulator claiming it has exclusive jurisdiction over these markets.
Industry groups see legislation as key to adoption
As lawmakers continue to work on amendments, various industry leaders have linked the bill’s progress to the potential for increased institutional involvement in digital assets.
Recently, Ric Edelman contended that regulatory ambiguity remains a major barrier preventing large capital pools from entering the cryptocurrency market, despite growing activity from financial institutions.
Edelman pointed out that firms like BlackRock, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Franklin Templeton, State Street, Invesco, and Fidelity are actively pursuing blockchain and tokenization efforts, even while cryptocurrency prices struggle to recover.
He predicted that as many as 95% of institutions currently without crypto exposure could join the market if the CLARITY Act is enacted. Edelman also highlighted Bitcoin ETF outflows and opposition from lawmakers such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as factors contributing to investor reluctance.
