Why and How We're Sunsetting ZKsync Lite
ZKsync Lite sunsets on May 4, 2026. Block production stops, but your funds are safe — withdraw via L1 claim contract. First 100K withdrawals sponsored.
ZKsync Blog > The CLARITY Act Isn't a Bank v...
Published May 4, 2026
The CLARITY Act Isn't a Bank vs. Crypto Fight. It's a Test of America's Ambition
This past week, Congress took a meaningful step. Negotiators released compromise language resolving the stablecoin yield debate that had stalled the CLARITY Act for months. It was a signal that Washington can move past a zero-sum framing and find ground that serves the broader national interest. The question now is whether that momentum extends to the harder work: building the digital financial infrastructure that keeps American institutions — banks, businesses, and the broader economy — competitive in a world that is not waiting.
America's community banks are at the center of that question. They hold structural advantages that no private technology company can replicate: deposit insurance, customer relationships built over generations, and a regulatory standing earned through decades of oversight. They are not losing ground because a competitor outbuilt them. They are losing ground because the regulatory framework has not kept pace.
The CLARITY Act is the opportunity to change that. When the GENIUS Act passed in 2025, it set the rules for payment stablecoins. The CLARITY Act is the next step. A framework that tells institutions of all sizes that digital financial infrastructure is welcome here, that the rules are knowable, and that capital committed today won't be unwound by regulatory reversal tomorrow.
Legislation alone isn't enough. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors asked the Fed, FDIC, and OCC in late 2025 for explicit clarity on FDIC coverage for tokenized deposits and Bank Secrecy Act expectations for tokenized networks. That guidance still hasn't arrived. Japan, China, and the UK have all reached the same conclusion: how a deposit is recorded should not change how it is treated. Until American regulators follow, the future of mid-sized American banks is in jeopardy.
Every month that answer doesn't come is a month the window narrows.
The Global Context Makes Urgency Unavoidable
Stablecoins are bearer instruments issued by private companies, operable in permissionless environments. They serve real needs successfully, ranging from decentralized finance, cross-border remittances in corridors where correspondent banking adds three days and 6% in fees, and digital payments for users outside the traditional banking system.
Tokenized deposits are different. While they are programmable and available 24/7, they remain the regulated, interest-bearing deposits banks have already offered for decades. They support the fractional reserve lending that finances homes, small businesses, and local infrastructure. Because of a regulatory framework the GENIUS Act established, they hold an advantage no stablecoin issuer currently replicates: the ability to offer yield as a fully regulated banking product, on rails the bank controls, backed by deposit insurance.
For months, the debate in Washington around the CLARITY Act was framed the wrong way. The digital asset industry argued that stablecoins were the future of payments and that banks were slow incumbents protecting their turf. Banking trade groups warned that stablecoins threatened deposit bases and undermined credit creation. This week's compromise on stablecoin yield showed that both framings were too narrow.
This should have never been a zero-sum fight between banks and crypto. It's a test to see whether the United States has the institutional maturity to hold two ideas in its head at once: that stablecoins and tokenized bank deposits are not substitutes for each other, and that both are necessary for the next era of financial infrastructure.
Delaying this decision is not a neutral outcome. Every month the U.S. lacks a clear framework is a month where institutional capital, developer talent, and financial innovation migrate elsewhere, whether it be to Europe under MiCA, the UAE's Digital Dirham framework, or to Japan and Singapore, which have already codified their approaches.
The cost of delay is consequential. Reclaiming first-mover advantage in financial infrastructure is no easy task.
The False Choice That Is Paralyzing Progress
The narrative that banks and stablecoins are adversaries is empirically wrong.
According to a March 2026 report by RWA.io, with contributions from J.P. Morgan, Citi, BNY, Standard Chartered, and others, tokenized deposits and stablecoins are already operating as complementary instruments in live production environments. The framework is clear: tokenized deposits enable 24/7 settlement within the regulated banking network, while stablecoins act as a connective layer for payments that move into the broader digital ecosystem. Similar to how checks, wires, and instant payments can coexist today without anyone declaring one of them obsolete.
This is not theoretical; real-world instances are taking place now. BNY launched its tokenized deposit service in January 2026, and J.P. Morgan's Kinexys platform is processing institutional FX settlement around the clock. In the UK, seven of the country's largest banks are running a live tokenized deposit pilot testing person-to-person payments, remortgaging, and digital asset settlement simultaneously. In Germany, companies including Bosch, Siemens, and BMW are using tokenized euro deposits to automate industrial treasury operations.
Meanwhile, the stablecoin market crossed $300 billion in late 2025, with adjusted payment volumes of $10.7 trillion — growing 88% year over year. They are increasingly powering stablecoins by holding their reserves, providing custody, and operating the on- and off-ramps, not losing to them. Institutions aggressively embracing this reality are positioning themselves at the center of the digital asset economy. Those being overly cautious will be left on the margins.
The Moat Banks Are Not Defending
Here is what the yield debate was obscuring all along: banks already hold the stronger hand in this competition. The real obstacle is not a competitor. It is the absence of a clear framework that lets them use it.
That gap carries a real cost for community banks, which is where the real stakes lie. According to FDIC data cited in a November 2025 congressional hearing, of the 4,429 insured institutions in the United States, 4,268 hold less than $10 billion in assets, collectively managing just $3.6 trillion of the nation's $25 trillion in total banking assets, while 161 larger banks control more than 85%. Community banks are not primarily losing to stablecoins. They are losing ground to concentration.
When regulatory ambiguity makes modern payment rails accessible only to institutions large enough to absorb the legal cost of operating without clear rules, the result is further consolidation of financial power in an already concentrated system. Shared tokenized deposit infrastructure, built under a clear regulatory framework, is what changes that equation. It is the mechanism that lets a regional bank compete on the same digital rails as a global custodian, without needing to build from scratch.
And if mid-sized and community banks are cut out, a key cornerstone of the American economy will lack access to innovation.
The Abundance Conclusion
For too long, two powerful industries treated this legislation as a zero-sum conflict, each refusing to give ground in a fight that was never really theirs to win or lose. This week's compromise broke that deadlock. But the rest of the world did not wait and it has not stopped building.
In February 2026, five U.S. regional banks — Huntington Bancshares, First Horizon, M&T Bank, KeyCorp, and Old National Bancorp — announced a shared tokenized deposit network, with a pilot expected later this year. This effort reflects a broader shift: banks are adapting to a financial system that increasingly demands faster, more interoperable movement of assets. The final vision: shared infrastructure that lets a regional bank in Tennessee compete on the same digital rails as a global custodian in New York.
A world in which both operate under clear rules is a world in which consumers have more options, community banks have a viable competitive path, and the United States retains the financial infrastructure leadership it has held for a century.
What community banks need is not protection from competition. They need the regulatory infrastructure to compete. The CLARITY Act provides part of that — and the guidance that still needs to follow from the Fed, FDIC, and OCC will complete it. Call it a little banking agenda: the straightforward proposition that America's 4,268 smaller institutions deserve the same shot at the digital economy as the institutions that already dominate it. That is not a radical idea. It is what American competitiveness looks like when it is built deliberately, for everyone.
Share the article
More from ZKsyncView all
The Wire That Couldn't Be Recalled
April 18's $290M loss at Kelp DAO came with a remarkable statement: the protocol worked exactly as designed. That sentence is the entire argument banks need to understand before choosing tokenized infrastructure — because some systems sold as blockchains are, underneath, just wires. And wires fail open.
$ZK Now Live on Revolut: Expanding Access to 15M Users Across Europe
$ZK is now live on Revolut, giving 15 million users across the UK and EEA direct access to the native token of ZKsync — the institutional privacy and settlement network on Ethereum — with 0% FX fees through one of Europe's most trusted fintech platforms.