JPMorgan says CLARITY is near a deal

The U.S. crypto rulebook may be closer to reality than it has been in years. JPMorgan says negotiations around the CLARITY Act have narrowed from about a dozen sticking points to just 2–3, with stablecoin rewards and agency oversight left on the table.

That matters because CLARITY is supposed to answer a question Washington has dodged for years: who regulates what in crypto, and under which rules? If lawmakers can finish the bill, the split between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission could become much clearer for exchanges, token issuers, DeFi apps, and stablecoin providers.

JPMorgan’s read is simple: the politics are still messy, but the deal is getting tighter. That does not mean passage is guaranteed. It does mean the most important fight in U.S. crypto policy has moved from broad disagreement to a handful of technical and financial details that lawmakers may actually be able to settle.

What JPMorgan says changed

According to the bank’s Wednesday report, talks in Washington have moved into the final stretch. One senior policy official said the dispute list has shrunk from roughly 12 issues to only 2–3, and the stablecoin rewards debate is now in “a good place.” That is a much narrower problem set than the one Congress faced earlier this year.

The bill is built to do more than redraw agency turf. It also tries to define how digital assets fit into the U.S. financial system, including how tokens are classified and how decentralized finance platforms are treated. For industry, that kind of language matters because it can decide whether a project is regulated like a commodity, a security, or something else entirely.

• Outstanding issues have dropped from about 12 to 2–3, according to JPMorgan.
• Stablecoin rewards are the biggest economic issue still being refined.
• DeFi oversight and token classification remain open questions.
• The bill would shape oversight between the SEC and CFTC.

That narrowing is important because crypto legislation often dies in the gap between broad agreement and final drafting. Once the remaining disputes become small enough, the bill can move from ideological debate to legislative plumbing, which is where many Washington deals either survive or collapse.

There is also a practical reason markets care. A cleaner federal framework would reduce the current patchwork, where firms try to guess whether a product will be treated as a security, a commodity, a money transmission service, or a banking product. That uncertainty has shaped where companies launch, how they market products, and how much legal risk they carry.

Why stablecoin rewards are the real flashpoint

The biggest fight is over whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield-like rewards to users. Banks hate the idea because they think it looks too much like deposit-taking without the same guardrails. Crypto firms, on the other hand, see rewards as a basic feature that helps stablecoins compete with bank deposits and money-market products.

This is where the politics get interesting. Stablecoins are no longer a niche crypto topic. They are now part of a broader fight over payments, deposits, and who gets to pay customers for holding money. If lawmakers ban or sharply limit rewards, they could slow adoption. If they allow them, banks will argue the rules tilt too far toward crypto issuers.

“There is no such thing as a perfect bill,” one policy advisor said, according to the JPMorgan report.

That quote gets to the heart of the current mood in Washington. The people in the room seem to understand that a final bill will be a compromise, not a clean win for either side. The question is whether the compromise is good enough to pass before the political calendar turns against it.

JPMorgan says the latest draft language could satisfy both crypto companies and traditional financial institutions. That is a notable claim, because those groups usually want opposite things. Crypto firms want room to build products quickly. Banks want tighter controls, especially when a product starts looking like a cash account.

For readers tracking the policy side of crypto, this debate is worth watching alongside our recent coverage of the CFTC’s staffing squeeze and AI use, because the agency split will shape how any stablecoin rules are enforced once they exist.

How this compares with the current crypto rule mess

Right now, the U.S. regulates crypto through a patchwork of enforcement actions, agency guidance, and old statutes that were written long before stablecoins or DeFi existed. CLARITY is meant to replace some of that ambiguity with a clearer map. The contrast with the current setup is stark.

Here is what the policy picture looks like today versus what CLARITY could change:

• Current system: SEC and CFTC overlap, and firms often learn the rules through enforcement.
• CLARITY proposal: responsibilities would be split more explicitly between agencies.
• Current system: stablecoin rewards sit in a gray area.
• CLARITY proposal: Congress would define what is allowed and what is off-limits.
• Current system: DeFi oversight is inconsistent and often reactive.
• CLARITY proposal: DeFi would get statutory treatment instead of ad hoc interpretation.

There is a reason this bill keeps coming back. Crypto firms want a federal rulebook because they are tired of guessing which regulator will show up next. Banks want one too, though for a different reason: they want the rules written before crypto products start competing directly with deposits, payments, and brokerage products.

The timing could still trip everything up. JPMorgan notes that the 2026 midterm election cycle may reshape priorities, especially if Democrats regain the House. That would not automatically kill CLARITY, but it could push crypto legislation lower on the list and slow the final vote.

That risk is why the current stage matters so much. When a bill is still broad and abstract, it can survive for months. Once it gets close to a vote, every unresolved sentence becomes a political target. The remaining issues around rewards, DeFi, and token classification are exactly the kind that can sink a bill if lawmakers run out of time.

What happens next if the deal holds

If CLARITY clears its final hurdles, the biggest immediate effect will be less confusion for U.S. crypto firms. That does not mean a free pass. It means a more predictable system, which is often what markets value most when regulation is unclear.

My read is that the next few weeks matter more than the next few months. If leaders can lock the text, schedule a vote, and avoid reopening the rewards fight, the bill has a real shot. If the text slips into election-season noise, the whole effort could stall again and force another round of lobbying in 2027.

For now, the market signal is obvious: Washington is closer to writing a federal crypto framework than it has been since the first wave of stablecoin debates began. The real question is whether lawmakers want a workable bill now, or a cleaner bill later that may never arrive.

If you want the practical takeaway, it is this: watch the final language on stablecoin rewards and DeFi oversight, because those two sections will tell you whether CLARITY is a serious regulatory reset or just another near-miss in U.S. crypto policy.