Brian Armstrong stated that The Wall Street Journal is preparing to attribute the failure of the Clarity Bill to Coinbase and himself. He countered that in January, he opposed an early draft sent for committee vote, which had significant flaws regarding DeFi, tokenization, CFTC authority, and stablecoin rewards, and pushing it through would harm the industry.

He noted that these issues were incorporated into the later text after about four months of revisions, and he "strongly supports" the revised draft that passed the committee and was submitted as the final version to the Senate. He criticized the newspaper for its long-standing hostility towards the bill, claiming its reporting resembled a repetition of bank lobbying positions rather than verifying the timeline. He also stated he would continue to advocate for clearer rules for crypto clients.

Public records partially align with his account: around January 14, he withdrew his support and wrote, "better no bill than a bad bill," leading the Senate Banking Committee to delay its review; points of contention included the prohibition of tokenized stocks, overly broad access to DeFi data, weakened authority of the CFTC, and potential elimination of stablecoin rewards. A compromise emerged between April and May: prohibiting passive income from idle balances while retaining activity-linked rewards, after which he urged the committee to proceed.

The final version failed to reach the required 60 votes in a procedural vote on September 15, with a tally of 49 to 50. British media attributed the breakdown in negotiations more to ethical clauses related to presidential crypto interests than to the January draft. Jamie Dimon publicly criticized, stating banks would not accept the then-current text and accused Armstrong of spending hundreds of millions in Washington. Bernstein later pointed out that the bill's failure allowed idle stablecoin rewards to continue temporarily, and the two committees would accelerate rule-making on their own.

Coinbase's stablecoin-related revenue was previously reported at about $355 million for a single quarter, accounting for approximately 19% of revenue, with reward rules directly impacting its products. This year, the company also received conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a national trust company, opening another federal channel.

Mechanically, this represents a repricing of responsibility following the legislative failure: the narrative sold is that "the exchange's veto destroyed the bill," while the narrative bought is that "bank lobbying and ethical clauses blocked the 60 votes." Funds shifted from betting on codified law to trading platforms where administrative rules and stablecoin rewards could survive a few more months; beneficiaries are exchanges still able to reward idle balances, while those under pressure are legislative traders who viewed the committee's approval as the sole catalyst.

The newspaper has yet to publish, and currently, only Armstrong has preemptively responded to the upcoming article.

Source: Public Information