[DigitalToday reporter Jinju Hong (홍진주)] Divisions within the industry are deepening over the U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill known as the CLARITY Act. Coinbase has withdrawn its support following a Senate revision, while Ripple is publicly urging passage, taking the opposite stance. The dispute shows that the same regulatory framework can create very different interests depending on companies’ business models and strategies.

BeInCrypto, a blockchain media outlet, reported on Jan. 27 that the industry response split after the Senate Banking Committee produced a sweeping revision to the CLARITY Act. Coinbase withdrew support after the Senate revision passed, but Ripple urged senators to pass the bill and made its support clear. Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Circle, Kraken and the Digital Chamber, among some major companies and industry groups, also backed the Senate version of the market structure bill.

The CLARITY Act aims to address a core issue in U.S. cryptocurrency regulation: who should oversee the market. The bill seeks to clearly divide jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It aims to define token trading methods, exchange operations, stablecoin structures and the legal status of decentralised finance (DeFi).

But the Senate revision significantly strengthens regulatory intensity compared with the version passed by the House. It includes expanding the SEC’s authority, adding token disclosure requirements, restricting stablecoin rewards and tightening oversight of some DeFi activities. It is seen as closer to a full rewrite than a partial amendment.

These changes reshaped companies’ interests. Coinbase argued the Senate revision weakens the CFTC’s role and excessively expands the SEC’s discretion, creating uncertainty for token listings and business operations. It strongly opposes the stablecoin rewards restriction, saying it could directly hit Coinbase’s consumer-focused business model.

It also warned that what amounts to a ban on tokenised stocks and tougher DeFi rules could hinder innovation and increase regulatory risks for large platforms. The company said, "There are too many problematic provisions, so we cannot support the bill in its current form."

Ripple, by contrast, is taking a completely different stance. Over the past year, Ripple has shifted its business direction toward institutional infrastructure, regulated payment networks and a compliance-focused strategy. Under that structure, Ripple sees “clarity” itself as more important than strictness.

A clear regulatory framework can lower barriers for banks, payments companies and institutional investors to participate in XRP, RippleNet and Ripple’s stablecoin RLUSD. The Senate revision’s move to define stablecoins as payment instruments rather than yield products is also seen as working in Ripple’s favour because it follows a payment-focused strategy.

Stronger DeFi regulation is also a relatively smaller burden for Ripple. Ripple has limited exposure to an open DeFi ecosystem, while it focuses on corporate and institutional partnerships, so tighter compliance could instead tilt the competitive environment in its favour.

The two companies’ interests also diverge over SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. Coinbase has consistently pushed for a CFTC-led oversight system. Ripple, after resolving years of SEC litigation, is prioritising predictability of rules over the identity of the regulator.

In the industry, analysis is emerging that this debate is no longer a fight of “crypto versus regulators” but has shifted to a conflict of interests among crypto companies. Regardless of whether the bill passes, the dispute around the CLARITY Act clearly shows that regulatory clarity does not carry the same meaning for every company.