GENIUS vs. Clarity: How Stablecoin Policy Became a Second-Order Economic Fight

51

By CoinEpigraph Editorial Desk | January 17, 2026

The late-day disruption of the Clarity Act markup did not introduce a new argument. It surfaced a suppressed one.

What unfolded was less a breakdown in process than a collision between two legislative layers that were never meant to carry the same economic weight. To understand why the session stalled—and why the debate is unlikely to resolve quickly—it is necessary to distinguish what the GENIUS framework already settled from what the Clarity Act is now implicitly reopening.

This is not a story about personalities. It is a story about sequencing.

What the GENIUS Framework Actually Did

The GENIUS framework addressed the classification problem.

Its purpose was to resolve ambiguity around whether stablecoins should be treated as deposits, securities, or payment instruments. In doing so, it established several foundational points:

• Stablecoins function as payment instruments, not bank deposits
• Issuers are not depository institutions by default
• Reserve assets must be segregated and transparent
• Payment utility does not confer lending authority

GENIUS did not authorize yield.
GENIUS did not prohibit yield.

It simply removed stablecoins from the traditional deposit regime, ending years of regulatory limbo.

That resolution mattered. Once classification was settled, stablecoins were no longer theoretical. They became infrastructural.

What Clarity Is Actually About

The Clarity Act operates one layer deeper.

Rather than revisiting what stablecoins are, Clarity implicitly addresses what stablecoins may economically do—specifically, whether interest generated on reserve assets can be retained institutionally or passed through to holders.

This distinction is subtle but critical.

GENIUS resolved form.
Clarity interrogates distribution.

That shift explains why the debate intensified rather than dissipated.

Why Yield Became the Pressure Point

Once stablecoins were accepted as legitimate payment rails, attention naturally migrated to the next leverage point: yield.

Interest generated on reserve assets has historically been absorbed within institutional balance sheets. That capture was rarely visible to end users and therefore rarely contested. Yield-bearing stablecoins make that capture explicit by design.

The policy friction arises not because yield is novel, but because who retains it is no longer implicit.

This is where economic incentives reassert themselves.

The Role of Deposit Economics (Often Unspoken)

Much of the public narrative around banking profitability emphasizes lending—mortgages, commercial loans, and credit extension. While accurate, that framing underplays the role of deposit economics.

Idle balances generate interest. When depositors receive below-market returns, institutions retain the spread. This has been normalized for decades, reinforced historically by regulatory frameworks such as Regulation Q, which deliberately suppressed deposit yield competition in the name of stability.

Stablecoins challenge that legacy assumption—not by replacing banks, but by offering an alternative architecture for idle capital.

That is the underlying tension.

Why the Markup Stalled

The late-session disclosures that halted the markup did not introduce new facts. They recontextualized existing ones.

Once it became clear that the debate was no longer about systemic safety alone—but about how interest is distributed—consensus became harder to maintain. The Clarity Act, intended to codify operational boundaries, found itself pressed into arbitrating economic outcomes.

Legislation is well suited to defining form.
It is far less suited to reallocating yield without resistance.

GENIUS Was Not Undermined—It Was Completed

It is important to be precise.

The events surrounding the Clarity Act do not negate the GENIUS framework. They confirm its effect. By resolving classification, GENIUS forced the debate to move forward rather than sideways.

Once stablecoins were no longer provisional, the economic consequences of their existence could no longer be deferred.

That progression is not accidental. It is structural.

What This Means Going Forward

The GENIUS vs. Clarity distinction will matter more—not less—as policy continues through Q1.

Future debates are likely to focus on:

• reserve treatment
• permissible pass-through structures
• competitive neutrality between financial architectures
• and the boundary between payments and yield

These are not ideological questions. They are allocation questions.

As long as multiple systems compete to intermediate idle balances, regulatory attention will follow the yield.

A Structural Takeaway

GENIUS answered what stablecoins are.
Clarity is grappling with what they change.

The friction between the two does not signal failure. It signals that stablecoins have moved from abstraction to relevance. Once relevance is established, economics—not definitions—becomes the battleground.

Understanding that sequence is more useful than attributing blame to any participant or institution.

This debate is not over. But it is now clearly defined.

---

At CoinEpigraph, we are committed to delivering digital-asset journalism with clarity, accuracy, and uncompromising integrity. Our editorial team works daily to provide readers with reliable, insight-driven coverage across an ever-shifting crypto and macro-financial landscape. As we continue to broaden our reporting and introduce new sections and in-depth op-eds, our mission remains unchanged: to be your trusted, authoritative source for the world of crypto and emerging finance.
— Ian Mayzberg, Editor-in-Chief

COINEPIGRAPH does not offer investment advice. Always conduct thorough research before making any market decisions regarding cryptocurrency or other asset classes. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future outcomes. All rights reserved ™ © 2024-2028.