Top US Exchanges Push to Ease Risk Asset Rules in CLARITY Act

Coinbase, Kraken, and Gemini are jointly lobbying U.S. lawmakers to include a risk asset easing provision in the long-delayed CLARITY Act, the comprehensive crypto market framework that has been stuck in Congress for months. The three exchanges – the largest U.S. operators – are pushing for changes they argue are critical to prevent capital rules from crushing token listings and trading margins.

The move signals that exchange operators see the current draft’s treatment of digital assets, particularly the capital requirements tied to risk weighting, as an existential threat to their business models. While details of the proposed easing remain behind closed doors, the lobbying campaign reveals exactly where the exchanges see their biggest regulatory vulnerability going into a potential markup.

Why the Big Three Are Pushing Now

The push comes as the CLARITY Act inches forward after repeated delays. A recent Senate markup on stablecoin rewards provisions showed that lawmakers are open to industry tweaks, giving exchanges a narrow window to shape the final bill. With a committee draft expected soon, the lobbying is designed to land a specific amendment that would loosen the risk classification applied to a wide range of digital assets.

For exchanges, the stakes are higher than a simple regulatory preference. The current version of the act is rumored to lump most non-stablecoin digital assets into a higher risk bucket, forcing platforms to hold materially more capital against customer crypto holdings and trading positions. That would directly compress the economics of listing altcoins, operating staking services, and managing institutional custody – all of which rely on thin spreads and high volume to generate returns.

What Risk Asset Easing Actually Changes

The simple market read is that exchanges want lighter regulation. The better read is that the fight over risk asset classification will determine the breadth of tokens available on regulated U.S. venues and the profitability of exchange platforms over the next cycle.

If the act maintains a strict capital buffer for risk assets, exchanges would likely delist a large number of illiquid altcoins, reduce staking availability, and see net interest margin from custody shrink. Volume that currently clears on U.S. platforms would increasingly migrate to offshore venues or DeFi, where capital requirements are nonexistent. For Coinbase (COIN), which derives a substantial share of transaction revenue from altcoin trading during speculative cycles, that would mean a direct hit to fee income – and a structural cap on growth.

Coinbase and its peers also face a second-order effect: institutional prime brokerage services depend on the ability to hold and lend a broad range of assets. A restrictive risk framework would make it uneconomical to support that business at scale, handing an advantage to unregulated competitors.

On the other hand, an easing provision that recalibrates risk weights for certain tokens would act as a powerful catalyst. It would effectively greenlight a wider universe of listings, lower the cost of providing staking yields, and allow U.S. exchanges to compete more directly with offshore platforms. That would likely trigger a repricing of exchange equities and the altcoin market itself, as traders price in increased liquidity and product availability.

The Next Catalyst: Committee Bill Language

The exchanges’ lobbying push turns the upcoming bill text – likely to emerge from committee in the coming weeks – into a concrete decision point. Crypto exchanges previously pushed back on token listing rules in the act, but this time the ask is narrower and more quantifiable: change the risk asset designation, not just the listing process.

Traders watching the crypto market analysis for the next catalyst should monitor whether the committee draft includes risk-weight language that explicitly mentions digital assets. Any sign that the provision is under negotiation – or that Senate staffers are working with exchange legal teams – would strengthen the case for an eventual easing. Conversely, a draft that doubles down on high capital requirements without an alternative framework would signal that the lobbying push failed, leaving exchange margins under pressure and altcoin liquidity at risk.

For now, the outcome is uncertain. But the fact that three major exchanges are coordinating on a single, high-impact provision tells you exactly where the regulatory bottleneck sits for the U.S. crypto market structure. The next concrete marker is not the final vote – it is the first public committee language, which will either embed the exchanges’ ask or confirm the tougher baseline.