Free Markets and Innovation, Sort Of

The Journal’s editorial board rejects crypto competition and instead misinterprets Clarity, a pro-innovation, pro-competition, and pro-consumer bill, argues the Blockchain Association's Summer Mersinger.

Free Markets and Innovation, Sort Of

Opinion

Free Markets and Innovation, Sort Of

The Journal’s editorial board rejects crypto competition and instead misinterprets Clarity, a pro-innovation, pro-competition, and pro-consumer bill, argues the Blockchain Association's Summer Mersinger.

By

Summer Mersinger

|

Edited by

Cheyenne Ligon

Aug 6, 2026, 11:30 a.m.

4

min read

Make

preferred on

Share

Share this article

Copy link

X icon

X (Twitter)

LinkedIn

Facebook

Email

Make

preferred on

Free markets, sort of (Getty Images/ismagilov)

The Wall Street Journal's Aug. 4 editorial on the Clarity Act, "Clarity for Crypto, Sort Of," opens by warning that Congress passes bills riddled with policy landmines because members won't do the work of defusing them. That’s a fair worry in general, but it doesn’t apply here. The editorial concedes more than the headline suggests. It credits the bill with ending the regulatory gray zone the last administration left behind, with giving investors and banks rules a future administration cannot simply discard, and with opening a path for innovations like tokenized stocks and bonds that would strip friction and cost out of the financial system. All of that, in the board's own assessment, is worth supporting. The board is not calling to reject Clarity, but for tighter language on a few provisions.

Summer Mersinger is CEO of the Blockchain Association and a former commissioner of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Rewards

Start with what the bill actually forbids. Payment for merely holding a stablecoin is prohibited. So is any program that ends up economically or functionally equivalent to interest on a bank deposit – and the text attaches penalties to the attempt. That test is the whole provision, and the editorial's warning about rewards paid to customers for holding stablecoins falls inside it.

What the text does permit is rewarding a customer for activity, so long as the reward isn't equivalent to a bank deposit. Credit card and loyalty programs have operated on that principle for decades without causing risk to the banking system. The argument against extending it to a new set of competitors argues that big banks should hold a monopoly on rewarding customers, which is an extreme form of protectionism.

DeFi

Here, the provision points in the opposite direction from the editorial. Section 10301 is not an exemption. It orders the SEC, with Treasury, to write rules for people who control protocols that are decentralized in name only: where someone can materially alter the protocol's rules, where operation turns on discretion rather than transparent code, where a party can restrict or censor use.

Section 10201 separately pulls registered digital commodity brokers, dealers, and exchanges fully inside Bank Secrecy Act reporting obligations, and Title IX puts $3 billion behind state and local investigators to use over five years. We set this out at length this week

answering

[x.com]

the National Sheriffs' Association, which made a version of the same misreading. To say the bill is weak on illicit finance is simply not true.

What Clarity declines to do is impose customer identification duties on software that has no customers. Software that takes no custody and controls no transactions is in no position to identify anyone. Requiring KYC on code does not create a compliance obligation on intermediaries; it creates a prohibition on publishing code.

Tokenized securities

The last worry is that stocks will migrate to decentralized shadow markets with few investor protections. As clearly stated in section 10505, a security does not cease to be a security simply because it settles on a blockchain. Securities remain under SEC authority, and Section 10301 is the provision that reaches whoever exercises control over the venue where that trading happens.

But notice what the editorial does with tokenization across four paragraphs. When banks issue and settle tokenized stocks and bonds, it removes friction, lowers costs, and merits support. When the same instruments trade somewhere else, it is a shadow market inviting regulatory evasion. The technology did not change between those two passages. The identity of the firm using it did.

That pattern runs through the piece: nobody needs to explain to the Journal's editorial page what it looks like when an established industry asks Washington to slow down a competitor. That is usually the argument it makes in the spirit of free and open markets, which is why this latest editorial is so disappointing. The editorial suggests Republicans are rushing this bill through before leaving town. It ignores that market structure legislation has been in the works for years. The House passed it a year ago with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senate Banking reported it in May. It has been on the Senate calendar since June and is not yet on the floor schedule this week. Haste is not the problem.

There is a live policy landmine in digital asset markets today. But it is not in this bill; the only thing standing between a lawful American business and an enforcement action is interpretive guidance a future administration can withdraw at will.

Free markets push new products to earn their place by competing under rules everyone can read, not by waiting for incumbents to bless it. That is the Journal’s normal point of view. Happily, that is what Clarity would achieve. It would ensure that intermediaries operate under real obligations, leave neutral software alone, and let the market decide the rest. The board should want the outcome it has argued for in nearly every other instance.

Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates

.

Latest Crypto News

1

JPMorgan says Hyperliquid ETF inflows have stalled as competition mounts

3 minutes ago

2

Bitcoin’s low volatility doesn’t necessarily mean low risk

1 hour ago

3

Why Sandisk and Western Digital crashed 10% and what it means for bitcoin

1 hour ago

4

JPYC raises $38 million Series B led by major Japanese logistics firm AZ-COM Maruwa

1 hour ago

5

Bitcoin, ether benefit as traders seek safety of largest tokens

2 hours ago

6

NFT startup founder charged with misusing funds from $10 million fundraising

3 hours ago

7

Live updates: BTC trades near $65,000; SpaceX rises ahead of $100 billion unlock

5 hours ago

8

Bitcoin developers flag 85 critical bugs in an "extremely bad" situation

5 hours ago

9

S&P 500 has added crypto's $2 trillion market cap this month. Bitcoin is not impressed. Here's why

6 hours ago

10

Bitcoin steadies above $64,000 as traders watch $100 billion SpaceX unlock

7 hours ago

Latest Research

The Evolution of the Crypto CEX Landscape: A Case Study on Binance

The Evolution of the Crypto CEX Landscape: A Case Study on Binance

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

By

CoinDesk Research

Jun 29, 2026

Commissioned by

Binance

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

Why it matters

:

Binance remains crypto’s leading exchange, expanding from spot and derivatives into RWAs, payments, savings, yield, and broader financial services.

View Full Report

More From

Opinion

Crypto may have institutionalized, but it still trades like a rumor mill

Everyone has the perps convergence backwards

RWA perps will outpace tokenization

Crypto

CD20

$1,748.71

CD20 down 0.30 percent

0.30%

BTC

$64,439.57

BTC up 0.24 percent

0.24%

ETH

$1,901.65

ETH up 1.44 percent

1.44%

XRP

$1.05

XRP down 1.54 percent

1.54%

SOL

$73.27

SOL down 1.01 percent

1.01%