Samara Cohen, the head of global market development at BlackRock (BLK.US), told Politico that the CLARITY Act is a critical step toward creating an investor-focused regulatory framework. The "Innovative Crypto Council," a digital asset industry group, has released a "Myths and Facts" report defending the legislation, arguing it strengthens oversight, improves customer protection, and combats illicit financial activities.

While the report carries an industry bias, the endorsement from BlackRock (BLK.US), a giant with massive regulated investment and tokenization operations, carries significant weight. This forces lawmakers to consider the voice of a traditional financial behemoth. BlackRock's (BLK.US) shift in stance is deeply tied to its business expansion. By the end of June, the company managed $15.3 trillion in assets, giving its opinion far more influence than typical crypto industry players.

In his 2026 chairman's letter to shareholders, Larry Fink revealed that BlackRock (BLK.US) manages nearly $80 billion in assets through digital asset exchange-traded products, holds $65 billion in stablecoin reserves, and operates the largest real-world asset tokenization fund. Looking back, Fink characterized cryptocurrencies as a reflection of money laundering needs in 2017, but later BlackRock (BLK.US) launched multiple Bitcoin and Ethereum-related products, expanding its tokenized funds and stablecoin reserve management business. In a 2025 official interview, Fink acknowledged his own growth and progress. Now, the institution that once viewed the crypto market as primarily involving financial crime is calling for clearer market rules to match its growing digital asset exposure.

Data compiled by Woofun AI shows that other financial institutions have varying positions but share a core demand. Goldman Sachs (GS.US) CEO David Solomon supports advancing the CLARITY Act, acknowledging its shortcomings but arguing that a clear market structure can enhance stability and create clear conditions for digital asset companies. Fidelity's public policy department calls the framework balanced and capable of providing legal clarity, benefiting U.S. investors and strengthening America's position in the digital asset market. Charles Schwab (SCHW.US), in a July 24 market research report, views the bill's passage as a key factor in rekindling institutional investor interest, though this is a research-level analysis, not an official endorsement.

These companies face a common practical problem: unclear asset classifications make it difficult to plan for asset custody, trading, tokenization, and product development. Notably, despite institutional support, controversies blocking the bill's progress remain, most prominently the issue of stablecoin rewards. The new framework prohibits paying interest-like rewards on passively held stablecoin balances but allows rewards based on transaction activity or platform engagement. Banks argue such incentives could attract deposits away from regulated financial institutions, while crypto industry players believe excessive restrictions would shield banks from competitive pressure.

Goldman Sachs' (GS.US) position is particularly critical; Solomon supports advancing the bill, while other bank executives continue to oppose the stablecoin reward provisions. His view focuses on the value of establishing market rules rather than ignoring banking concerns. Deeper legislative obstacles involve political ethics and compliance scope. Lawmakers disagree on the extent and enforcement of restricting senior officials and their family members from issuing, promoting, or profiting from digital assets. Additionally, the scope of compliance obligations is debated regarding decentralized platforms and software developers that do not hold customer assets. These issues go far beyond determining which regulator oversees which token.

Behind the push for the bill, BlackRock (BLK.US), Goldman Sachs (GS.US), and Fidelity have commercial motivations: clear rules reduce legal uncertainty for existing or planned business expansion. Compared to smaller competitors, large enterprises are better equipped to bear licensing, reporting, and compliance costs. However, corporate support does not mean every provision benefits consumers or promotes fair competition; it merely indicates that regulatory uncertainty has impacted large financial firms. The next test is whether lawmakers can resolve the stablecoin rewards, political ethics, and compliance disputes before institutional support wanes.