Crypto3 min read

The new CLARITY Act text is 14 pages longer. The stablecoin yield section is unchanged, word for word

We diffed Section 10404 in the July 22 and September 10 bill texts from Senator Lummis's own site. All 2,288 words are identical, including the clause that lets a permitted reward be calculated from your balance.

Published by TheSampleSpaceReviewed by the editor · Sep 10, 2026

In briefSenate Republicans released a revised CLARITY Act on September 10 with the next vote on September 15 at 2:15pm ET¹The updated text adds CFTC registration and Bank Secrecy Act coverage for non-decentralized DeFi protocols, limits DeFi provisions to spot and cash transactions, and clarifies credit union powers²Lummis says the bill incorporates more than 114 provisions requested by Democrats³

Senator Cynthia Lummis speaking at a lectern — Photo: Mr. Satterly (CC0)

Senate Republicans released a revised CLARITY Act on September 10, 630 pages against 616 in the July 22 draft, with the first procedural vote set for Tuesday, September 15 at 2:15pm ET. The new material requires "non-decentralized finance trading protocols" to register with the CFTC and come under the Bank Secrecy Act, limits the DeFi provisions to spot and cash digital commodity transactions, and clarifies what credit unions may do. Senator Cynthia Lummis, who released the text, says it carries "more than 114 separate provisions at my Democrat colleagues' request."

Sep 10, 2026 on X · 20.6K views · captured Sep 11, 2026

So we went and read the section August was actually spent fighting over.

Section 10404, "Prohibiting interest and yield on payment stablecoins," runs 2,288 words. We pulled both PDFs from Lummis's own site, ran them through pdftotext, stripped the line numbers and the page furniture, and compared the two word streams. They hash to the same value. Every subsection, every carve-out, every semicolon: identical.

Stand With Crypto says its supporters contacted Congress nearly 50,000 times in August. The community bankers ran television. Nobody moved a word.

What the section actually does

Paragraph (c)(1) is absolute. No covered party may pay "any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration)" to a US customer "solely in connection with the holding" of stablecoins, or on a balance in a way "economically or functionally equivalent" to interest on a bank deposit. Paragraph (2) then permits rewards for "bona fide activities." And four subparagraphs later, the sentence that carries the whole argument:

Payments to restricted recipients of consideration, rewards, or benefits that are permissible pursuant to paragraph (2) and subparagraph (A) of this paragraph may be calculated by reference to a balance, duration, tenure, or any combination of the foregoing.

CLARITY Act, Sec. 10404(c)(3)(B), September 10 text, p. 229

A payment calculated from a balance and a duration is interest. That is the arithmetic of interest. The bill does not outlaw the formula; it outlaws a characterisation, "economically or functionally equivalent to the payment of interest or yield on an interest-bearing bank deposit," and then hands the defining of that characterisation to the CFTC, the SEC and the Treasury Secretary jointly, by notice-and-comment rulemaking, within one year of enactment.

So what does Tuesday's vote decide? Not the rate. The referee. If you were waiting for the Senate to tell you whether a stablecoin balance can earn, it will not.

Our read

On September 9 we wrote that the bill would land on rewards permitted for activity and prohibited as a passive rate on idle balances, and that this was the line both sides could claim. The line is right. Our timing was wrong, and the diff says so: it was drawn on July 22, and the August lobbying was spent on a settled page.

The honest case against us is that a section goes untouched because it is agreed, not because pressure failed, and that leaving it alone is what a deal looks like. Fair. But look at what the bankers got. A sense-of-Congress paragraph with no operative force, an anti-evasion clause, and paragraph (5), which gives a platform that structured a rewards programme in "good faith reliance" ninety days to come into compliance with no penalty. If you are designing a yield product, that is a free trial of your own legal theory.

Lummis says Democrats "got almost everything they asked for." Politico reported the same day that none of them support the bill. A hundred and fourteen provisions, zero votes, five days out.

We would expect 10404 to be enacted roughly as drafted and the fight to move to a joint rulemaking docket that almost nobody will read, and we would expect a large platform to relaunch a balance-referenced "rewards" product under (c)(3)(B) within eighteen months of those rules landing. A floor amendment striking (c)(3)(B) before Tuesday would tell us we have misread who wrote this paragraph and why.

The rulemaking deadline is one year after enactment. Watch the comment file.

Sources

Senate Republicans released a revised CLARITY Act on September 10 with the next vote on September 15 at 2:15pm ET“BREAKING: The Senate has just released the latest version of the CLARITY Act. The next vote to move the bill forward will be Tuesday, September 15th at 2:15pm ET.” — x.com · primary · Sep 10

The updated text adds CFTC registration and Bank Secrecy Act coverage for non-decentralized DeFi protocols, limits DeFi provisions to spot and cash transactions, and clarifies credit union powers“Provisions addressing when non-decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols must register with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and be subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, similar to provisions in section 10301 of the Banking…” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Lummis says the bill incorporates more than 114 provisions requested by Democrats“We have incorporated more than 114 separate provisions at my Democrat colleagues' request, and as a result, this bill is a strong bipartisan product.” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Show all 12 sources

The September 10 bill text is 630 pages; the July 22 text was 616 pages“EHF26718 8CL S.L.C.” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Section 10404 prohibits a covered party paying any form of interest or yield on a stablecoin balance held by a US person“No covered party shall, directly or indirectly, pay any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) to a restricted recipient— (A) solely in connection with the holding of the payment stablecoins of that…” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Permissible rewards may be calculated by reference to a balance, duration or tenure“CALCULATION BY REFERENCE.—Payments to restricted recipients of consideration, rewards, or benefits that are permissible pursuant to paragraph (2) and subparagraph (A) of this paragraph may be calculated by reference to a balance,…” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

The CFTC, SEC and Treasury must jointly write rules clarifying the prohibition within one year of enactment“RULEMAKING.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissions and the Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly promulgate regulations through notice and comment rulemaking to clarify the…” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

A covered party acting in good faith reliance has 90 days to come into compliance without penalty“GOOD FAITH RELIANCE.—A covered party that structures a program in good faith reliance on paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not be subject to penalties if a subsequent rulemaking or adjudication determines the program falls outside paragraphs…” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Stand With Crypto says supporters contacted Congress nearly 50,000 times in August, while bankers pressed for changes to the rewards provisions“Industry group Stand With Crypto said supporters contacted members of Congress nearly 50,000 times in August, while bankers have pressed for changes to the rewards provisions.” — decrypt.co · reported · Sep 10

Politico reported the latest version has no Democratic support“Politico reported that the latest version does not have any support from Democrats, which is crucial in passing the bill.” — theblock.co · reported · Sep 10

Lummis said Democrats got almost everything they asked for and should vote for the bill“They demanded the felony bar on fraudsters, $150M for the CFTC, the crackdown on platforms like Binance, and they got almost everything they asked for. Now they need to vote for the bill they built. Anything less is walking away from…” — decrypt.co · reported · Sep 10

The July 22 bill text, used for the comparison, was published by Lummis's office“SEC. 10404. PROHIBITING INTEREST AND YIELD ON PAYMENT STABLECOINS.” — lummis.senate.gov · primary · Sep 10

Up next · Keep readingCrypto · 3 min read

Coinbase took its own chain's name off its wallet and put a rival's chain in the pitch

Base App becomes Coinbase Wallet again after fourteen months, supporting eleven networks of which Coinbase owns one, with perpetuals routed to Hyperliquid.

Continue ↓