Coinbase Exec Forecasts May Markup for CLARITY Crypto Bill

The CLARITY market structure bill in the United States could be marked up by the Senate Banking Committee as early as next week, according to Kara Calvert, the vice president of US policy at Coinbase. Speaking at the Consensus 2026 crypto industry conference in Miami, Calvert indicated that momentum is building toward a committee vote, but stressed that passage will require broad bipartisan support and a solid 60 votes in the Senate.

“My prediction is that we have a markup next week,” Calvert said at Consensus 2026. “That means you need Democrats. You need a bipartisan bill, and we have all been working really hard to make sure that bipartisanship holds. I think the big question is, how do these votes shape up over the next few days?”

“That means you need Democrats. You need a bipartisan bill, and we have all been working really hard to make sure that bipartisanship holds. I think the big question is, how do these votes shape up over the next few days?”

In context, a HarrisX poll released on Thursday underscored broad appetite for clear federal crypto rules. The survey found that 70% of voters believe the US should already have enacted clear cryptocurrency legislation, and 62% regard the US as pivotal in setting global rules for digital finance.

However, the path forward remains uncertain. The CLARITY bill previously stalled in January after Coinbase withdrew its support, citing concerns including insufficient protections for open-source software developers, a prohibition on stablecoin yield, and certain DeFi regulatory gaps. As Cointelegraph reported, these issues contributed to hesitation among industry participants about advancing the legislation without further refinements.

Related coverage notes that a broader political dynamic may influence timing. A separate report cited a US senator suggesting a vote on crypto market structure could occur by August, signaling ongoing legislative attention to the sector even as specific provisions remain contested.

A key takeaway highlighted by Calvert is that the tax framework surrounding crypto remains a central hurdle to institutional adoption. The prevailing view is that coherent tax policy is often more critical to mainstream participation than the exact contours of market structure legislation. Institutional actors seeking to acquire and hold digital assets face complex tax reporting burdens that add cost and compliance risk.

Tax reporting requirements under current regulations require crypto exchanges to document numerous transactions for IRS purposes, including small-value trades. Calvert described the process as an inefficient burden that undermines the attractiveness of crypto as an asset class for institutions. In this context, several lawmakers have advanced tax reform proposals aimed at simplifying treatment for digital assets, with the Digital Asset PARITY Act among the notable efforts under consideration.

Looking ahead, Calvert estimated that tax reform discussions could gain momentum in 2026, with potential action in both chambers in the coming months. She noted that while market structure legislation remains on the congressional radar, a robust tax policy framework could have a more decisive impact on institutional participation in crypto markets.

Key takeaways

• The CLARITY Market Structure Act could receive a markup in the Senate Banking Committee as early as next week, signaling renewed congressional attention.
• passage hinges on bipartisan support and securing 60 votes in the Senate, a threshold that requires cross-party collaboration.
• Public sentiment strongly favors clear federal crypto rules, with a majority of voters supporting expedited regulatory clarity and leadership in global digital finance norms.
• Past resistance centered on protections for open-source developers, DeFi regulation gaps, and restrictions on stablecoin yields; these concerns may shape ongoing negotiations.
• Tax policy remains a primary barrier to institutional adoption, with proposed reforms toward simplifying crypto taxation and reporting highlighted as critical to broader participation.

Legislative timing and bipartisan dynamics

The forthcoming markup reflects a broader strategy to finalize a coherent federal framework for crypto markets. Calvert’s view underscores the practical challenge: a bipartisan coalition is essential to pass controversial market safeguards that touch on exchanges, developers, and liquidity providers. The Senate’s willingness to engage on a comprehensive package, rather than piecemeal provisions, will likely influence not only the CLARITY bill’s fate but also the pace of related tax and regulatory proposals.

As observers weigh the political calculus, it is clear that the administration and lawmakers are intent on avoiding a regulatory gap that could jeopardize perceived global competitiveness. The balance between investor protection, innovation, and regulatory clarity remains at the center of the debate, with industry stakeholders monitoring committee schedules and drafting discussions closely.

Tax policy and institutional adoption barriers

Beyond market structure specifics, a coherent tax regime is viewed as a pivotal enabler or constraint for institutions. The current framework, which some describe as misaligned with the complexities of digital assets, imposes extensive reporting obligations that increase administrative costs and compliance risk for banks, custodians, and asset managers. Calvert pointed to the volume of 1099-DA-style reporting as an example of how tax rules can hamper efficient participation in crypto markets.

In parallel with package discussions, lawmakers have introduced tax-focused proposals aimed at providing parity and reducing unnecessary friction for legitimate crypto activities. The Digital Asset PARITY Act—among the measures cited by industry participants—illustrates congressional efforts to simplify tax treatment while preserving compliance controls. The ongoing debate over how best to align tax policy with evolving market realities is expected to shape both legislative posture and enforcement priorities in the near term.

From an enforcement perspective, the interplay between tax policy, regulatory oversight, and market structure is material for exchanges, banks, and institutions seeking reliable, lawful access to digital asset markets. Regulatory filings and policy papers indicate a move toward greater clarity on reporting standards, transfer of value, and custody requirements—areas that directly impact licensing, risk management, and internal governance for market participants.

On the regulatory horizon, the CLARITY debate unfolds within a broader ecosystem that includes discussions on stablecoins, DeFi governance, and the scope of permissible activities for non-custodial protocols. As policymakers weigh these elements, the potential for harmonization with international standards—while preserving US innovation and market integrity—remains a central objective.

Regulatory context and market implications

The ongoing debate around the CLARITY Act sits at the intersection of policy design and practical compliance needs. For exchanges and institutions, a clear federal framework can reduce legal uncertainty, facilitate licensing, and streamline cross-border operations. Conversely, if final legislation imposes stringent restrictions on stablecoin yields or imposes expansive DeFi regulations, firms may face higher compliance costs and strategic reconsiderations about product design and market participation.

Industry observers also note that regulatory alignment with federal rules would complement international efforts, including Europe’s MiCA framework, by providing a common baseline for compliance expectations and reporting standards. While MiCA addresses certain aspects of digital asset markets within the EU, the US approach continues to emphasize a combination of specific rules for tokens, platforms, and custodial services, with enforcement priorities determined by agencies such as the SEC, CFTC, and DOJ.

In this context, the poll results indicating broad demand for federal clarity acquire particular significance: if policymakers deliver a comprehensive, bipartisan package, institutions may accelerate due diligence, risk assessments, and governance updates to align with forthcoming requirements. Conversely, protracted negotiations or partial measures could maintain a level of regulatory uncertainty that complicates capital allocation and program design for large firms and financial intermediaries.

According to Cointelegraph, the regulatory debate remains active, with stakeholders watching for signs of how the next weeks’ markup and related tax discussions might translate into concrete policy outcomes. The evolving framework will influence licensing trajectories, reporting obligations, and the risk controls that underpin institutional participation in digital assets.

Closing perspective

The next steps in the CLARITY bill process will be closely watched by market participants, policymakers, and regulators alike. A markup in the near term would signal renewed congressional attention and set the stage for negotiations on a broader policy architecture that could shape institutional access to crypto markets for years to come. While much remains unresolved, the emphasis on bipartisan support and tax policy coherence will likely determine the trajectory of US crypto regulation in the near term.