Will the clarity act affect small and medium businesses negatively

[Joy_learns_crypto]

The US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) believes that the clarity act will negatively affect Hispanics who owns small and medium businesses.
And this is according to Cointelegraph on X https://x.com/cointelegraph/status/2080553682878283860?s=46
And attachment of the letter sent to the Democratic leader and majority leader by the US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) they fear that the clarity act will reduce the resources that banks would have to give out loans to small and medium businesses and this will lead to problems for Hispanic business owners.

The reason they raised according to the letter sent is that digital asset platforms may not support lending. They also talked about the breakup of bank to business loan relationship due to lack of available deposit in the possession of the bank.

In opinion the (USHCC) in other words want to take away the freedom of others to move to digital asset because they want to have readily available loan resources.

The clarity act will not make it compulsory for everyone to move towards digital assets but only those who has interest in doing so and I think that should be allowed.

[bitLeap]

The US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) believes that the clarity act will negatively affect Hispanics who owns small and medium businesses.
And this is according to Cointelegraph on X https://x.com/cointelegraph/status/2080553682878283860?s=46
And attachment of the letter sent to the Democratic leader and majority leader by the US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) they fear that the clarity act will reduce the resources that banks would have to give out loans to small and medium businesses and this will lead to problems for Hispanic business owners.

The reason they raised according to the letter sent is that digital asset platforms may not support lending. They also talked about the breakup of bank to business loan relationship due to lack of available deposit in the possession of the bank.

In opinion the (USHCC) in other words want to take away the freedom of others to move to digital asset because they want to have readily available loan resources.

The clarity act will not make it compulsory for everyone to move towards digital assets but only those who has interest in doing so and I think that should be allowed.

I tried to review the information as a whole and one thing that the CLARITY Act does not require or emphasize the community to move its assets to digital so it all depends on how much later the community is interested? The real concern is not from Hispanics but from banks who feel that if the CLARITY Act is passed, it will reduce funds in bank accounts so that banks are no longer free to rotate money to lend to entrepreneurs.

[danherbias07]

Not just that. Enclosed with it are other serious matters.

Republicans on Wednesday re-released a measure — known as the Clarity Act, major legislation to govern the broader digital asset market. Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., the bill’s lead sponsor, provided CNBC with its text, which now includes the first limits on how presidents may profit off of crypto.

The legislation would tap the Department of Justice to enforce the ban. The agency could levy a fine of up to $250,000 per day for violators.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/22/senate-crypto-bill-would-ban-federal-officials-from-issuing-digital-assets.html

I don't think it will pass. There's too much debate about it, including a conflict of interest. They won't get enough votes that they need. Since many officials must have assets in cryptocurrencies, this will be big trouble for them.
It's actually a good bill for an average person. But for those who are in power, this is trouble. Then, there are the banks that will be affected more. Although I really like it to happen. I hate banks because they keep our money, they invest it, and we get nothing. It's our damn money, and we don't even have a percentage of what they will make through loans and investments.

[Dunamisx]

In opinion the (USHCC) in other words want to take away the freedom of others to move to digital asset because they want to have readily available loan resources.

This could be the first reason from the government perspective, because I have learned one thing about most of our leaders in many countries that they don't support anything that does not give them priority over to control the system.

The clarity act will not make it compulsory for everyone to move towards digital assets but only those who has interest in doing so and I think that should be allowed.

Of course it has to be by choice and many will definitely intend to do so as the may decided for, except if already seeing as a way to take away their privacy and other control measures the have towards their assets.

[Fortify]

The US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) believes that the clarity act will negatively affect Hispanics who owns small and medium businesses.
And this is according to Cointelegraph on X https://x.com/cointelegraph/status/2080553682878283860?s=46
And attachment of the letter sent to the Democratic leader and majority leader by the US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) they fear that the clarity act will reduce the resources that banks would have to give out loans to small and medium businesses and this will lead to problems for Hispanic business owners.

The reason they raised according to the letter sent is that digital asset platforms may not support lending. They also talked about the breakup of bank to business loan relationship due to lack of available deposit in the possession of the bank.

In opinion the (USHCC) in other words want to take away the freedom of others to move to digital asset because they want to have readily available loan resources.

The clarity act will not make it compulsory for everyone to move towards digital assets but only those who has interest in doing so and I think that should be allowed.

There's two different threads going on here, while the clarity act might be absolutely intended to target or benefit certain groups of people as Trump is always doing - usually for nefarious reasons or personal gain. It may very well have the chilling effect of undermining loan making ability for that group of people and that is being argued, hopefully it'll properly investigated with an answer given. However you have tried to blend in some completely different argument which is absolutely not related to this. Your suggestion seems to be that it'll be harder for certain people to borrow money that might then flow into digital assets, but that's a false premise anyway because business loans does not magically equal "I'm going to borrow money and spend it all on crypto". No, far from it - in fact the terms of these loans would now and then likely prohibit it being spent on high risk assets like crypto.

[Zlantann]

The reason they raised according to the letter sent is that digital asset platforms may not support lending. They also talked about the breakup of bank to business loan relationship due to lack of available deposit in the possession of the bank.

These Hispanic-owned businesses are worried that the bill will cause the migration of deposits from banks and other financial institutions to the crypto industry. And if this happens, it will reduce the financial strength of the federally insured financial institutions to offer loans or credit facilities to Hisponic own businesses.

Every sector is lobbying to ensure that their interest is the proposed bill. They simply want lawmakers to include clauses that would reduce the risk of movement of deposits from banks to cryptocurrency platforms. Meanwhile, most of us in the crypto industry want more money to flow into the crypto market to push up the price of assets. Clash of interest .

With the disagreement about ethical concerns (concerning political office holders investing in crypto) and the tight schedule of the lawmakers, the Bill might not be passed this year. Congress will be going on recess next month, and the midterm elections are scheduled for the first week of November. There might not be much time to amend, debate, and pass this bill.

[el kaka22]

So let me see if I get this correctly. If the Clarity Act passes, then we are going to see bitcoin being a lot easier to invest in thanks to new regulations. And if that happens, then banks will have an easier time investing the deposits into bitcoin as well (hoping it would go up, so they profit), and if that does happen, then they are going to profit from bitcoin and pay the deposits back, and they will be fine with that profit, meaning that also means loans will not be needed.

So if Banks do see the Clarity Act, they will stop giving loans to smaller to medium sizes and they will instead profit somewhere else from bitcoin. Is that the thing they are complaining about? So what is the alternative for the Hispanic community: make banks not profit too much from bitcoin and instead keep on making a smaller profit from giving loans to small businesses? That makes no sense.

[DiMarxist]

I don't see the reason's for this type of moves from organizations, for all that I know Bitcoin is not competing with any sector of the economy. The clarity act is for the purpose of a proper legislative framework which will guide crypto currency and digital assets if am not mistaken. So for any one to be thinking that money will not be in the banks or even be given to small scale businesses to support them is no saying the truth. If banks are not giving loans to small scale businesses it's not the fault of Bitcoin that is the responsibility of government and the relevant government organizations should do something about it to correcting the whole process.

[Cryptomultiplier]

I don't see the reason's for this type of moves from organizations, for all that I know Bitcoin is not competing with any sector of the economy. The clarity act is for the purpose of a proper legislative framework which will guide crypto currency and digital assets if am not mistaken. So for any one to be thinking that money will not be in the banks or even be given to small scale businesses to support them is no saying the truth. If banks are not giving loans to small scale businesses it's not the fault of Bitcoin that is the responsibility of government and the relevant government organizations should do something about it to correcting the whole process.

First of all, the Clarity Act is aimed to provide businesses with a sure way to do their business in the U.S and while it protects customers, it also draws a clear line between commodities and securities.

So if retail individuals or businesses choose the option of holding their assets in digital form or stablecoins, it is okay so long as they abide by the regulations being set in place by the clarity act.

The time of a hybrid economic system is no longer a dream, but a reality now, where an individual or a business can have both fiat currency and digital assets on their balance sheets.

[Coyster]

Not so long now, i wouldn't be surprised if some of these institutions start sending out letters that the Clarity Act wouldn't help them sleep well at night, so it shouldn't be passed. Bullshit. All of this is clearly in a bid to stop the bill from becoming law.

For those in the dark, the letter is addressing the issue of stablecoin yield/reward in the Clarity Act, which proposes bank-like interest payments for hodlers of stablecoins. So, the banks and institutions like USHCC believe offering such would encourage people to withdraw funds from the bank and move it into stablecoins, which would hamper the bank's ability to give out loans.

That said, they fail to capture the fact that a compromised has been reached on that aspect of the bill, and interest/reward wouldn't be paid for passive usage. To earn this interest you have to use your stablecoins and not just hodl it, it's based on activity done with your coins.

[Alpha Marine]

This is something I have always mentioned as a reason for the government to be against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. I think the concerns of the  USHCC are valid, but they're worrying too soon.
It's true that if customers and businesses start focusing on self-custody instead of depositing with the banks, the banks will have a reduced amount of money to give out loans, but the thing is, for now, the amount of funds that will be diverted to digital currencies won't be significant enough to affect how the banks give loans. This will only be a problem when more people start doing it.

Also, the way I see it, the Clarity Act won't make people who were not already crypto-inclined suddenly go into crypto. Even if it does, it won't be a significant number of people.

As insensitive as it may sound, it is capitalism. They've benefited from it for years. In capitalism, you either evolve or die. It is that brutal.
If their fears actually happen and more people choose self-custody instead of the banks and the banks lack money for loans( a scenario which I don't see happening), then they will need to come up with ways to fund their businesses.

[Muba20]

The US Hispanic chamber of commerce (USHCC) believes that the clarity act will negatively affect Hispanics who owns small and medium businesses.

If the clarity act is passed, it will create problems for the banks, which is why the banks will work against this law. However, if we think impartially, then everyone has the right to be free. An investor can invest in digital assets if they want, and if they don't want that's their own business. From a very general assessment, I can say that if the clarity act is passed, it cannot be said that it will cause harm to any other small or medium business. It should not be thought that if the clarity act is passed, everyone will leave the bank. I think the USHCC should be better monitored on this issue.

Currently, there is a positive perception around the world about cryptocurrency, and I think there should be a clear legal framework for it so that all investors or business organizations do not get into any legal complications. In other words, we can say that the CLARITY Act should be implemented for clarity.

[Mhizlove]

I don't see the reason's for this type of moves from organizations, for all that I know Bitcoin is not competing with any sector of the economy. The clarity act is for the purpose of a proper legislative framework which will guide crypto currency and digital assets if am not mistaken. So for any one to be thinking that money will not be in the banks or even be given to small scale businesses to support them is no saying the truth. If banks are not giving loans to small scale businesses it's not the fault of Bitcoin that is the responsibility of government and the relevant government organizations should do something about it to correcting the whole process.

I share the same view. Bitcoin is not the reason why banks don't support small businesses or why most financial systems don't work as expected. You see, different financial assets can exist side by side and again people should be free to choose the ones that suit their needs. So instead of seeing Bitcoin as a threat, I think that financial institutions and regulators should focus more on creating a system where innovation can grow while traditional banking still serves the people effectively, so that at the end of the day, if one sector gets weak, the solution is supposed to fix that weakness and not put the blame on other technology.

[Coyster]

It's true that if customers and businesses start focusing on self-custody instead of depositing with the banks, the banks will have a reduced amount of money to give out loans

Like i already posted earlier, the supposed concern here is stablecoin yield/reward, and not self custody in itself. You do not earn interest when you just hodl your assets in self custody. But what the Clarity Act proposes is for stablecoin issuers to pay bank-like interest to stablecoin users. Though a compromise has already been reached for such payments to only include active usage of stablecoins and not passive, like simply hodling it in your wallet.

I share the same view. Bitcoin is not the reason why banks don't support small businesses or why most financial systems don't work as expected. You see, different financial assets can exist side by side and again people should be free to choose the ones that suit their needs. So instead of seeing Bitcoin as a threat

Bitcoin is not the cause for concern in this subject, but stablecoin yield/reward. Read my earlier post to get the context.

[Alpha Marine]

Like i already posted earlier, the supposed concern here is stablecoin yield/reward, and not self custody in itself. You do not earn interest when you just hodl your assets in self custody. But what the Clarity Act proposes is for stablecoin issuers to pay bank-like interest to stablecoin users. Though a compromise has already been reached for such payments to only include active usage of stablecoins and not passive, like simply hodling it in your wallet.

I didn't know a time when this was what the bill was proposing. It has always been the opposite. Till now, the debate between banks and crypto companies has always been about activity-based rewards.
I don't see how you can expect stablecoin issuers to pay interest to stablecoin holders when they are not using the money for any investments. The only reason why banks can give interest is that they can invest the deposits they receive. Stablecoin issuers can't invest the coins in holders' wallets, so how are they going to get interest to pay out?
The arguments from traditional banks is that there is a loophole to be exploited and that is the fact that activity based yeiled are allowed, but crypto companies argue otherwise.