There was a bigger story behind the battle over stablecoin rewards in the CLARITY Act: a fight over who will control the underlying infrastructure of digital finance as tokenization moves rapidly from experiment to broad adoption. Tokenization is forcing a battle over whether this new financial system will be built primarily on private networks controlled by financial institutions, with central banks and regulators at the center, or on public networks, similar to the internet, that no financial institution owns and that anyone can build on. Many people don’t realize how systematic this battle between old and new has been, or how long it has been underway. As far back as 2021, the @baselcommittee effectively required banks to hold capital equal to 100% of their exposure to cryptoassets like BTC. That rule wasn’t designed to benefit banks - banks and their regulators frequently have competing interests - but its effect was to create a regulatory wall between the banking system and assets operating on open networks. Then, in 2024, the @BIS_org joined with seven central banks and dozens of the world’s largest banks and other financial institutions in Project Agorá to build an alternative tokenized payments system around commercial bank deposits and central bank money - essentially recreating the existing banking architecture on new technology rather than moving payments onto open networks. The common thread isn’t that banks and their regulators always agree. They don’t. And banks themselves increasingly experiment with public networks. But the core economics of banking - and the regulatory perimeter within which those economics operate - remain rooted in an institutionally controlled system. Banks and their regulators may have different interests within that system, but both have powerful reasons to resist financial activity migrating outside it to public networks that no institution controls. The stablecoin rewards fight was another chapter in this larger battle. Big banks sought restrictions on rewards that would make stablecoins less attractive as an alternative payments infrastructure. They activated community banks with warnings that rewards would cause massive deposit flight, despite never producing evidence for that claim. But the banking campaign was much bigger than rewards. The banks worked to peel away support for CLARITY among lawmakers in both parties, contributing to delays and ultimately the death of legislation that would have provided statutory protection for developers and decentralized financial applications operating outside bank-controlled payment rails. The Trump administration has embraced a very different approach to tokenization, competition and disruptive technologies. From its first days, the Trump Administration made it explicit U.S. policy to protect Americans’ ability to use open public blockchain networks, develop and deploy software, transact peer-to-peer and maintain self-custody - and to support innovation on permissionless blockchains. The President’s Digital Assets Working Group went further, calling on policymakers to embrace DeFi and describing the movement behind crypto as one dedicated to building a more open and efficient financial system. The administration has been putting that commitment into practice, using regulatory authority to enable more financial activity to move onchain and reducing regulatory barriers to the development of decentralized financial infrastructure. These regulatory steps don’t replace legislation. But the Trump administration deserves enormous credit for understanding what is ultimately at stake: not simply whether finance becomes tokenized, but what kind of financial architecture America will build. Finance will be tokenized. The question is what we tokenize onto: open infrastructure that anyone can build on, or a digital version of today’s system controlled by the institutions that dominate it. That is the fight.

Grateful to @SummerMersinger for her leadership and conviction on digital assets and U.S. innovation. She approached her work with discipline, deep experience (including her tenure at the CFTC), humility, and heart. On a personal note, I'm grateful to call Summer a friend. Thank you for your friendship. You will be missed, but look forward to your next, well-deserved adventure. @crypto_council looks forward to continuing to partner with the @BlockchainAssn. The present and future remain extremely positive for digital assets, here in the U.S. and around the world. There is much to do, and the time is now.

Something worth remembering. The industry has to keep working together to be proactive. Not reactive. Security has to always be the #1 priority to protect customer assets.

Thank you, Commissioner @HesterPeirce. Truly grateful. 🙏

John D'Agostino says there's no evidence behind crypto's alleged impact on community bank deposit degradation "I did a talk a couple months ago in front of a bunch of community banks and regional banks. It was set up to me as like a debate, they're gonna fight you on it. I wound up having a wonderful time with a bunch of really smart people, several of which I stayed in touch with." "We all agreed that crypto and blockchain and Coinbase can help them. And one of them in particular, Chris Kennedy from Regions Bank, we just published an article and an op-ed walking through this." "I exhaustively looked at this. I reached out to dozens of friends in the community banking space and the research space." "No one could show me any research or evidence that crypto had any role in deposit degradation over the last 10 years from community banks."

CCI thanks @ChairmanSelig and @CFTC staff for today's updates to the agency's crypto FAQs. The new guidance clarifies when FCMs and DCOs can invest customer funds in tokenized forms of permitted investments. It also confirms that CFTC recordkeeping rules are technology neutral, so registrants can use blockchain technology to meet their recordkeeping obligations. Practical, technology-neutral guidance like this gives market participants the clarity they need for innovation to thrive in the U.S. CCI looks forward to continued engagement with the CFTC to advance regulatory clarity. nitter.net/CFTC/status/2103178460…

Very excited to be an angel investor supporting this new school. My first startup was in education. There is so much more we can and should be doing to educate the best humans. Congrats @gaganbiyani, @eriktorenberg, and the entire h16n team!

1/ Yesterday, CCI also responded to @NYDFS's proposed rule for payment stablecoin issuers. Tl;dr: for payment stablecoin adoption to thrive, State and Federal regulatory frameworks must align. NYDFS should refrain from advancing its proposal until key pieces of the Federal framework are final.

1/ Yesterday, CCI filed comments to @SECGov's proposed rule to make electronic delivery the default for delivering communications to investors. Tl;dr: As Chair Atkins says “In an age of AI and blockchain technology, a default to paper delivery should be a relic, not a standard.”

Exciting news from @crypto_council member, @SoFi -- first national bank to go live with stablecoin settlement across the @Mastercard's global network. $25B in card volume, now on-chain. Much more to come.

This weekend’s WSJ piece is misdirection, and a failed attempt attempt to pin CLARITY stalling on @brian_armstrong. I love the Journal, but it has posted numerous articles and editorials this year parroting banking industry talking points on CLARITY. This piece is no exception, right down to a string of false characterizations. What it buries: the Journal’s own systemic bias and missing fact-checks, any skepticism of the banking lobby’s claims, and the reality that (outside of a few offices) the vast majority of Democrats appear never to have negotiated in good faith. Instead, the article claims Coinbase secured big wins in the final months but wanted more. That could not be further from the truth. For eight months, the industry (including Coinbase) gave ground again and again, only to be told, every time, that 90% of the way on an issue still wasn’t enough to close it out. No line is a red line when every line is red. Here’s what the Journal won’t say: those no votes protected no one. They wiped away the consumer protections, ethics provisions, AML tools, and real intermediary regulation the bill would have built. Not too different from the way this article waves away five years of hard work with a fairy tale.

I was with him every day he grinded to forge compromise across the industry. I also spent days in the room across from bank industry lobbyists who were charged with killing any bill no matter what. So it’s rather hilarious to pin CLARITY’s failure on … @brian_armstrong. Please.

I am 13 weeks old today. Week 13 was filled with 20+ teams sharing why a Faster Ethereum L1 matters, research into potentially cutting finality times by more than half, and a lot of digging into what L2s and wallets need next.

After a few days of reflecting on—and dissecting—everything that happened with CLARITY, one thing stands out as remarkable: the tireless work of dozens of staffers who cared deeply about getting this right. And among them is a small group who went above and beyond. They deserve our deepest gratitude. Some of the hardest parts of legislating happen between the headlines: endless drafts, competing priorities, hard red lines, and brinksmanship. That back-and-forth isn’t failure. It’s how serious bipartisan legislation gets stronger. Staffers rarely get the credit they deserve for that work. They put in countless late nights, wrestled with incredibly hard issues, and showed up every day to represent their Senators and their states. Public service is too often thankless. So thank you—to the staffers, and to everyone who read the text, engaged constructively, and called their Senators. Hope we can all keep showing up. That’s how we get clear rules for crypto.

The WSJ wants a blame game. It got the story wrong, again. @coinbase and @brian_armstrong have consistently fought for CLARITY and for smart policy that benefits our industry and country. Let's look at the actual facts. On CLARITY, Coinbase advocated fiercely for our country to finally have what has been missing: comprehensive market structure. On rewards, the Ag title, the Banking title, and the entire bill, they prioritized what would best serve our industry, consumer protection, and most importantly, our country. And on rewards, Coinbase, and our industry, made real concessions, and many of them, to give this critical legislation a shot at moving forward. I was in those rooms and meetings. The compromise was real, and Coinbase helped us get there. I've worked with Coinbase on CLARITY, and the WSJ's reporting could not be further from the truth. Time and again, I saw Coinbase make substantive recommendations, negotiate in good faith, work with the industry, serve as a resource to members of Congress, and yes, make concessions to move this process forward. Coinbase and Brian's advocacy did not happen overnight. When the prior SEC made regulation by enforcement its playbook against our industry, Coinbase fought back. They petitioned the SEC for real rules. When they were stonewalled, they took it to the Third Circuit, which called the agency's reasoning "conclusory." They saw the SEC's enforcement case against them dismissed with prejudice. They sued under FOIA to expose the debanking campaign. To suggest that Coinbase has not put our industry first, or is somehow to blame for the failed vote, is egregiously inaccurate. Yes, CLARITY's failed vote was deeply disappointing, but our industry is more united today than ever. A piece like this is built to manufacture division right when we're locked arm in arm and focused on next steps, including supporting the regulatory agencies that are moving quickly to provide the clarity we need. It won't work. Coinbase has led from the front for our industry, so has Brian. These are the facts. wsj.com/finance/currencies/c…

Here we go again! The WSJ is working on a story blaming Coinbase and me personally for the CLARITY Act not passing. The Journal has repeatedly been hostile to CLARITY in its reporting, regurgitating bank lobby talking points, while I’ve spent years pushing for crypto legislation, but that’s not stopping them from trying to reverse the blame. The boring TLDR: in January I opposed a draft of the bill going into a committee vote, because it needed a lot of work on DeFi, tokenization, CFTC authority, and stablecoin rewards. At the time, the bill had major issues that would have harmed crypto. Support was fractured, and it wasn’t passable. We worked with a number of parties who improved the bill and made it passable. All four of the items I called out were fixed in the draft that then went through the committee about four months later. I'm proud to have done it, and would do it again, because it helped create a better bill. One step of many along the way. The final draft of CLARITY that went to the Senate was great, and I strongly supported it. I'll continue showing up for our customers and pushing for clear rules that treat crypto fairly, even if those who feel threatened by crypto try to plant false stories. It's a shame that the WSJ takes direction from bank lobbyists instead of reporting the truth, but luckily, people are smart enough to see through it these days, and it backfires on them every time.

Politics beat policy this week. That's the lesson, not the outrage. Crypto - and the 67 million Americans who own and use it - aren't going anywhere. Neither is the opposition - or the allies who found it politically expedient to walk away from commitments. Our industry has too many voices pushing too many messages. That's on us to fix. It's time to speak with one voice through one megaphone.

Proud of my longtime staffer, Chris Land, for being named one of The Hill's 25 Most Notable Hill Staffers of 2026. He has led our digital assets efforts and served as the lead policy staffer on the GENIUS Act and Clarity Act negotiations. Congrats, Chris! thehill.com/the-hill-notable…

Clarity was coming no matter the outcome of the vote.

The following is a statement from our CEO @_jikim on the @SECGov’s Innovation Exemption: