A major U.S. cryptocurrency bill was abruptly thrown into doubt this week after opposition from Coinbase, underscoring how deeply the industry now shapes financial lawmaking in Washington. The episode offers a revealing counterpoint to Europe’s more cautious, institution-led approach to crypto regulation and the digital euro.
The legislation, known as the Clarity Act, was scheduled for a key Senate Banking Committee vote after months of negotiations. It aimed to establish a comprehensive framework for digital tokens, including rules on market structure, supervision and the long-running question of whether crypto assets should fall under securities law. Instead, the vote was postponed after Brian Armstrong publicly withdrew his company’s support.
In a detailed post, Armstrong argued that the draft bill would be “materially worse than the current status quo.” He objected to provisions that he said would amount to a de facto ban on tokenised equities, restrict decentralised finance, weaken privacy protections, and curb rewards paid on stablecoins. He also warned that the balance of power between regulators would tilt too far toward the Securities and Exchange Commission, at the expense of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which the industry sees as more permissive.
The speed with which lawmakers reacted illustrated Coinbase’s political weight. Over the past two years, the exchange has invested heavily in Washington, backing industry-aligned political action committees and cultivating relationships across Congress. Under President Donald Trump’s administration, enforcement actions brought during the previous government were dropped, and crypto firms have sought to lock in that regulatory pullback through legislation.
Stablecoins sit at the heart of the dispute. For Coinbase and issuers such as Circle, the ability to offer yield-like rewards on dollar-backed tokens is a core commercial strategy, blurring the line between payments, savings and money market products. U.S. banks have pushed back, warning that such features create bank-like instruments without bank-style supervision. That tension ultimately surfaced inside the Clarity Act and proved decisive.
For European policymakers, the episode is instructive. Under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, stablecoins are deliberately constrained, with tight limits on interest-like incentives and a strong emphasis on consumer protection and financial stability. The contrast reflects a deeper philosophical divide: in Europe, crypto rules were negotiated slowly and anchored in public authorities, while in the U.S. they remain highly sensitive to industry veto power.
The clash also resonates with the digital euro debate. The European Central Bank has consistently framed a digital euro as a public anchor for the monetary system, designed to coexist with private innovation while limiting dependence on foreign or lightly regulated payment instruments. The turmoil around the Clarity Act reinforces the ECB’s argument that leaving core payment functions to private actors can carry political as well as financial risks.
Whether the U.S. Senate revives the bill remains unclear. What is clear is that the failure of a flagship crypto law, triggered by a single company’s objections, has sharpened global attention on who really sets the rules of digital finance. For Europe, it is a reminder that regulatory restraint and public money design may prove to be sources of stability rather than obstacles to innovation.