TL;DR
- Brad Garlinghouse puts 80% odds on Clarity Act passage before April.
- The Ripple CEO urges the industry to accept imperfect but certain rules.
- The core dispute centers on whether stablecoins can offer yield.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said this week there is an 80 percent chance the Clarity Act, a proposed regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, will pass before the end of April. That level of certainty is uncommon in U.S. politics, especially for the crypto sector, where timelines often stretch without clear resolution.
According to his explanation, the legislation advanced through much of the Senate Banking Committee’s review process before stalling. Instead of demanding an ideal regulatory framework, he urged the industry to accept partial progress. His message was direct: certainty, even if partial, is preferable to the current situation, even if the bill does not include everything the industry wants.
Ripple’s Interest in Clear Rules
Ripple’s position in this debate has a practical basis. The company spent four years in a high-profile lawsuit with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The case concluded when a federal judge ruled that XRP, the token associated with Ripple, does not qualify as a security. That ruling represented a win for the company, but it did not solve the broader problem. The cryptocurrency sector as a whole still operates without defined federal rules.
Garlinghouse tied Ripple’s long-term success to the health of the overall market. Although XRP’s legal status is clearer than that of most tokens, Ripple still needs access to exchanges, liquidity, and U.S. markets. If the industry remains in a state of regulatory uncertainty, the company cannot thrive in isolation.
The Friction Point: Stablecoin Yield
The Clarity Act stalled in January after Coinbase withdrew its support. The decision responded mainly to unresolved disagreements around stablecoin yield and other technical points. That dispute continues to be the main point of friction.
Traditional banks have expressed concern about the possibility of losing deposits. Their fear is based on the possibility that crypto firms could offer higher returns than conventional checking accounts if stablecoins are allowed to generate interest. That concern has concrete foundations.
Yield-bearing stablecoins could pull capital out of the banking system, which would generate active pushback from regulators and financial institutions. Given that stablecoins sit at the center of crypto market infrastructure, this single disagreement has been enough to delay the entire regulatory framework.
The Timing Factor Heading Into 2026
Sources close to the negotiations indicate that discussions are continuing. The current administration is increasing pressure to finalize a framework before the 2026 midterm elections. That date matters because once election campaigns intensify, controversial bills tend to get postponed.
In the absence of a market structure law, crypto companies operate under fragmented rules. This situation leads some firms to establish operations overseas. Exchanges, token issuers, and developers continue to work with legal uncertainty. Garlinghouse’s central argument is that the industry has waited long enough. In his view, an imperfect framework would be preferable to continuing under a supervision model based mainly on case-by-case legal actions.
