Why Banks Fear the CLARITY Act: The Business Model at Risk in the Token Era

By the CoinEpigraph Editorial Desk | November 7, 2025

The Law That Redefines the Playing Field

Washington’s new CLARITY Act was supposed to do what its name promised—clarify digital-asset regulation. Instead, it’s doing something else entirely: forcing banks to confront a future in which their monopoly over money may no longer exist.

Behind the legislative language lies a structural shift. The Act’s three-tier taxonomy—digital commodities, investment-contract assets, and permitted payment stablecoins—is more than classification; it’s a blueprint for financial migration. For the first time, value can legally circulate in programmable, tokenized form without touching the traditional deposit system.

To the crypto community, that’s overdue modernization.
To the banks, it’s a controlled detonation of their funding base.

The Deposit Problem No One Wants to Admit

For more than a century, the commercial bank model has depended on a simple loop: deposits in, loans out. But stablecoins—especially under the CLARITY Act’s relaxed issuance rules—represent a new kind of deposit: frictionless, interest-bearing, and redeemable anywhere with a digital wallet.

Banks see what’s coming. If consumers can hold tokenized dollars directly on a blockchain—with yields from DeFi protocols or money-market wrappers—they may never park savings in a bank again. That means less cheap capital for lending, less fee income from payments, and less leverage over customers.

In private memos, trade groups describe the Act as “deposit disintermediation by statute.” It’s not paranoia. It’s arithmetic.

The Regulatory Shift That Feels Like a Coup

The CLARITY Act also reassigns who’s in charge. Oversight of most digital-asset activities moves from the SEC to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a regulator historically more attuned to market structure than moral hazard.

Banks, long accustomed to the protective friction of the SEC’s slow process, now face a regime where exchanges, custodians, and token issuers can gain approval through CFTC frameworks far lighter than bank-charter compliance. In other words, crypto institutions get agility; banks get bureaucracy.

Add to that the Act’s explicit permissions for non-bank entities to custody digital assets and you have the core of Wall Street’s frustration: the moat is gone.

Compliance, Capital, and the Cost of Conversion

Even if banks want to adapt, the on-ramp is steep. The CLARITY Act’s hybrid custody provisions require any institution handling both traditional and digital assets to maintain separate capital buffers and risk systems. That’s double the compliance infrastructure with half the profit margin.

Smaller and regional banks worry they’ll be priced out entirely. Large multinationals, meanwhile, must choose between waiting for regulatory certainty or spinning up parallel entities under CFTC rules—an operational nightmare.

Hence the irony: legislation designed to clarify has made incumbents feel existentially exposed.

The Competitive Reality

Outside the marble halls, fintechs are celebrating. Payment platforms, crypto brokers, and DeFi protocols suddenly have a path to legitimacy without begging for a bank charter. They can issue tokenized instruments, settle transactions instantly, and access global liquidity pools—all under a compliance umbrella banks consider porous.

For the traditional sector, the risk isn’t criminal—it’s commercial. In the token economy, speed and composability beat scale and legacy.

“Banks aren’t losing the law—they’re losing the narrative,”
says one industry strategist. “The next generation doesn’t care who holds their money; they care who moves it fastest.”

The Fear Beneath the Anger

Publicly, bank associations speak of “systemic risk.” Privately, their fear is more primitive: irrelevance. If capital markets, consumers, and corporations can self-custody, tokenize collateral, and transact peer-to-peer, what remains of the intermediary’s power?

The CLARITY Act doesn’t outlaw banks—it simply renders them optional in functions they once owned. That’s a harder blow than any fine or rule.

The Market Perspective

Investors see opportunity in the chaos. If digital-asset firms gain quasi-bank status under CFTC oversight, valuations across custody, stablecoin issuance, and tokenization platforms could rerate upward.

At the same time, the Act could accelerate the rotation of capital from balance sheets to blockchains. Corporate treasuries exploring tokenized money-market funds or on-chain commercial paper now have clearer guardrails. For macro funds and sovereign wealth managers, that clarity is permission.

In contrast, banks will need to defend spreads in an environment where yield and liquidity live on public ledgers.

Political Realities and Apple-Level Power

The banking lobby’s fury is tempered by realism. After narrowly escaping antitrust actions this year, major financial institutions know Washington has little appetite to rescue another entrenched incumbent. The optics favor innovation.

Policymakers see the CLARITY Act as a geopolitical tool—keeping U.S. capital competitive with token markets forming abroad. Bank resistance thus reads less as prudence and more as protectionism.

In that light, their outrage isn’t persuasive; it’s predictable.

The Larger Narrative: Finance Without Friction

The deeper story here isn’t about law; it’s about momentum.
Every major technological transition—from telephony to the internet—began with incumbents citing safety before losing share to usability.

The CLARITY Act codifies that inevitability in finance. Once money becomes code, every restriction built for paper weakens.

For banks, survival will depend on internal reinvention: turning from guardians of deposits to architects of digital trust. Some will evolve into token custodians, liquidity routers, and risk-management hubs. Others will fade quietly into acquisition targets for the very fintechs they once dismissed.

Conclusion: The Beginning of the End—or the End of the Beginning

The CLARITY Act is not anti-bank. It is post-bank—a framework acknowledging that financial intermediation no longer requires vaults or branch networks to function.

Banks may win delay battles through lobbying, but the strategic war has already shifted to software. The institutions that accept that truth earliest will survive it. Those that don’t will discover what every disrupted empire learns too late: clarity doesn’t kill you; denial does.

At Coinepigraph, we pride ourselves on delivering cryptocurrency news with the utmost journalistic integrity and professionalism. Our dedicated team is committed to providing accurate, insightful, and unbiased reporting to keep you informed in the ever-evolving crypto landscape. Stay tuned as we expand our coverage to include new sections and thought-provoking op-eds, ensuring Coinepigraph remains your trusted source for all things crypto. -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 ™ © 2024-2025.