Debate Shifts From Stablecoin Yields To Ethics Issues In Clarity Act

• Senator Kristen Gillibrand argued that the Clarity Act must include ethics, consumer, and illicit finance provisions to gain strong bipartisan support.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (Clarity Act) has just cleared a major hurdle, with a compromise between banking and crypto groups over stablecoin yields. However, there appear to be more pressing issues that legislators must address in the pending bill: its ethics, consumer protection, and illicit finance provisions.

Ethics Provisions in Clarity Act

Senator Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) recently discussed at CoinDesk’s Consensus Miami 2026 event that lawmakers must incorporate an ethics provision into the Clarity Act to ensure it gains strong bipartisan support. It means after fixing the market side of the negotiations, proponents now have to tackle its political aspect.

The senator stated that Republicans and Democrats must include rules in the bill that would prevent the president, senior elected officials, and their families from actively conducting businesses, having investments, or engaging in activities related to crypto. The measure would help curb conflicts of interest arising from the special clout that high-ranking officials wield over markets in which their current positions, duties, or policies could easily reshape.

The lawmaker’s primary concern obviously ties to the Trump family’s active involvement and growing influence in crypto. However, since the matter of ethics is already outside the Senate Banking Committee’s scope, it will likely elevate the Clarity Act for markup without the specific provision on the subject, leaving the Senate floor to debate on it later.

Other Matters that Need Attention

Additionally, Gillibrand highlighted that legislators must focus on consumer protection and safeguards of the Clarity Act against illicit finance and terrorism financing. One of the key arguments around them centers on developers’ accountability if bad actors were to use their creations for fraudulent or other criminal activities.

The legal stalemate in the remaining cases involving Tornado Cash (TORN) founder Roman Storm is a prime example of the bottleneck caused by the lack of legal clarity on the subject. The current decentralized finance (DeFi) provision of the Clarity Act aims to free developers from the legal repercussions of the potential misuse of their products by criminal elements. However, law enforcement groups criticized the rule, arguing that implementing it would make it harder for them to crack down on illegal crypto rings.

Senator Cynthia Lummis said negotiations on the issues are ongoing, and she is confident that stakeholders and her colleagues will reach a deal soon.

The post Debate Shifts From Stablecoin Yields To Ethics Issues In Clarity Act appeared first on Blockzeit.