A trio of high-profile crypto exchanges reportedly pressed U.S. lawmakers to strike a controversial provision from a sweeping market-structure bill that, if enacted, could curb trading options for smaller digital assets. According to a Politico report, Coinbase, Kraken and Gemini asked legislators to remove language that would require platforms to offer trading only on assets “not readily susceptible to manipulation.”

The move, which emerged after the US Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its version of the bill in January, highlights the growing influence of exchange operators as policy dialogues unfold ahead of broader regulatory decisions. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong later signaled that the legislation could not be supported “as written,” particularly over issues surrounding tokenized equities. Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase’s chief policy officer, later described the matter as “old news” in a social post, underscoring how these discussions have persisted through the markup process.

The reported intervention occurs as regulators signal a push to coordinate crypto oversight even amid limited action from Congress. In March, both the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated their intention to coordinate enforcement and oversight of digital assets, an alignment that has sustained despite legislative gridlock. The policy jockeying comes as lawmakers grapple with a broader market-structure framework known as the CLARITY Act, which moved through the House in 2025 and would empower the CFTC to take a lead role in digital-asset regulation.

Beyond these internal debates, industry dynamics continue to shape the process. The same Politico report notes that industry voices have been active in shaping the markup, with exchanges arguing that certain provisions could chill listings of smaller tokens. The evolving dialogue has drawn attention to the tension between regulatory safeguards and the practical realities of token listings, especially for newer or less liquid assets.

In context, industry and policymaker commentary has also touched on the broader timeline for the bill. Last week, a compromise on stablecoin yield was announced between representatives of the crypto and banking sectors, reigniting hope that at least some elements of the CLARITY Act could progress in the Senate Banking Committee. Coinbase’s policy executives have repeatedly framed timing as a critical factor—some expect a markup in the banking committee as early as next week, while others anticipate at least a pathway to a floor vote before the Senate recess in August. In parallel, White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt indicated the administration’s ambition to see the bill advance, aiming for a July 4 deadline for House passage following a June Senate vote.

Taken together, the latest disclosures illustrate how closely industry executives shape the regulatory debate as lawmakers weigh a more centralized framework for digital assets. The CLARITY Act would, if enacted, grant the CFTC expanded authority over digital assets, with the SEC also seeking to coordinate on market oversight. That dual-track approach continues to influence both public policy and market behavior, even while key questions about tokenization, listing standards and potential conflicts of interest linger in the background.

Key takeaways

Exchanges reportedly urged lawmakers to drop the “not readily susceptible to manipulation” standard, arguing it could restrict listings for smaller assets.
The CLARITY Act would expand the CFTC’s authority over digital assets, with ongoing coordination between the CFTC and SEC noted by regulators despite a lack of full congressional action.
Industry voices have become visible players in the markup process, signaling potential policy leverage ahead of final passage.
Market observers are watching timelines closely: a possible markup next week, with some anticipating House action before August recess and the White House signaling an aim for July 4 progress.
Alongside structural questions about listings, debates around tokenized equities remain a central sticking point for supporters and critics of the bill.

Regulatory momentum, even amid uncertainty

In March, both U.S. financial regulators signaled a willingness to coordinate oversight of crypto markets, signaling a practical continuity of policy goals even without a fully enacted law. The alignment between the CFTC and SEC reinforces a pragmatic approach to overseeing a rapidly evolving asset class, where enforcement and rulemaking can proceed in parallel with legislative activity.

Industry participants, including major exchanges, have argued that certain regulatory language could impede the ability to list a broad spectrum of digital assets. The tension between safeguarding markets and enabling innovation sits at the heart of the current debate, with observers noting that the final framework will likely rely on a combination of rulemaking, oversight, and targeted legislation rather than a single sweeping statute.

What investors and builders should watch next

For market participants, the coming weeks will be telling. If the markup proceeds as anticipated, the contours of the final market-structure framework could become clearer, including how strictly platforms must assess asset manipulability and what thresholds apply to listing decisions. The ongoing dialogue around tokenized equities underscores a broader question: how to balance investor protection with the practical realities of a diverse asset universe that includes smaller, less liquid tokens.

As the timetable evolves, stakeholders should monitor both committee actions and executive-level signaling. A marked advancement in the banking committee, coupled with a cohesive federal push on stablecoins and yield, could shift the regulatory calculus in important ways for issuers, exchanges and users alike. The balance between risk controls and listing flexibility will likely shape liquidity dynamics, funding models, and the pace of mainstream adoption for digital assets.

Readers should stay tuned to committee calendars, as well as the administration’s public communications, for the next high-signal updates on where the CLARITY Act stands and how industry input may influence precisely where the final law lands.