CLARITY Act stalls again
U.S. legislation to clarify DeFi developer liability, KYC obligations and stablecoin yield rules hit a new roadblock as lawmakers and industry fight over ‘Title 3’ money‑transmitter language and passive stablecoin yields—leaving developer protections unresolved. The impasse keeps regulatory risk high for yield-focused protocols and pushes projects to consider compliance hooks or jurisdictional hedges. (coinpedia.org, coingape.com)
Sen. Cynthia Lummis publicly defended the CLARITY Act on March 27, 2026, calling recent revisions the “strongest protection” for DeFi developers while crypto lawyer Jake Chervinsky warned Title 3’s wording could still expose non‑custodial developers to money‑transmitter liability. (coinpedia.org) H.R.3633’s text (the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025) contains a Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act safe harbor for “non‑controlling” developers in Section 109, even as Title 3’s illicit‑finance provisions remain contested by industry lawyers. (congress.gov) Senate movement has stalled ahead of a Senate Banking Committee markup eyed for April 2026 as negotiators haggle over passive stablecoin yield limits and money‑transmitter language, delaying statutory clarity for yield‑focused DeFi protocols. (ainvest.com) More than 30 crypto firms and the DeFi Education Fund previously petitioned Congress for DOJ guidance on money‑transmitter enforcement, and Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly criticized the CLARITY Act on national TV, signaling major industry pushback. (jfsky.com) The bill passed the House 294–134 in 2025 but market trackers and lobby analyses show Senate odds shifted as the stablecoin‑yield fight persisted, prompting projects to evaluate adding on‑chain compliance hooks or relocating activity overseas. (defirate.com) Legal analysts flag that proposed pre‑trade certification for DCEs and yield restrictions could raise compliance costs for U.S. yield strategies and incentivize custody and dollar liquidity to migrate offshore. (hodder.law)
