Author
Ahmed Barakat
Author
Share it
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse went straight to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon on Fox Business on Wednesday, to say to him about the ‘intentional misrepresentation’ of the CLARITY Act, legislation pending in the Senate that would establish a regulatory framework for US crypto markets.
The lawsuit is specific: Garlinghouse says Dimon is undermining the bill’s intent to protect JPMorgan’s payments business, which generates about $20 billion a year and profits of more than $5 billion.
The controversy follows Dimon’s late May Fox Business interview with host Maria Bartiromo, in which he called the CLARITY Act inadequate on AML and BSA grounds and called Coinbase co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong, the bill’s most prominent proponent, ‘full of shit.’ Garlinghouse used the same platform, the same host, to retaliate.
Flashpoint is one unique area: whether crypto exchanges like Coinbase can offer stablecoin yields to users who have stablecoin balances on their platforms. That one clause has attracted all the bank’s power, and, Garlinghouse argues, Dimon’s opposition.
Note: The best crypto to change your profile
Garlinghouse vs. Dimon: What Does the CLARITY Act Really Affect?
Garlinghouse’s criticisms are straightforward. “What Jamie Dimon did wrong … is that he’s representing that this reduces anxiety, that it’s easier to do bad things,” Bartiromo said.
‘That is not true. It would be deliberate misrepresentation or even negligence to try to provide Clarity Act relief.’
Dimon said the position, that the CLARITY Act weakens anti-money-money protection and the Bank Secrecy Act protection, receives one sentence of metal-manning: banks have a valid structural interest to ensure crypto assets carry similar compliance bundles.
The problem, according to Garlinghouse, is that the bill doesn’t reduce that burden. It creates a frame where there is none.
The debate revolves around one area: the yield of stablecoins offered on crypto exchanges. Armstrong threatened to pull Coinbase’s support for any deal that didn’t include the clause.
Dimon made Armstrong ‘the only one’ pushing, costing ‘hundreds of millions of dollars in Washington.’
Garlinghouse acknowledged that Armstrong represents the interests of Coinbase in particular, but added that ‘the company wants clarity, and they want control.’
That distinction is strategically necessary: ​​fighting for stablecoin yields is a mountain of Coinbase, but much bigger. crypto regulatory framework behind the CLARITY Act is the support of many companies.
JPMorgan’s $20B Payroll Business: Why Dimon Has a Dog in the Fight
$20 billion in annual revenue. $5 billion profit. That’s JPMorgan’s payout empire, and it’s a number that makes Garlinghouse’s case more analytical than rhetorical.
Stablecoin yields on exchanges directly threaten the business model. If users can deposit stablecoins on Coinbase or a platform close to Ripple and get a yield, the deposits are transferred from the bank account.
JPMorgan’s holdings and fees depend on managing the funds. Allowing crypto exchanges to replicate the basic functionality of banking, interest-bearing funds, chips on a moat basis.
“Jamie Dimon should also be clear that they are trying to protect and dig a deep business trench that is very profitable for them,” Garlinghouse said plainly.
JPMorgan has its own blockchain services, JPM Coin and the Onyx platform, but opponents of the merger Garlinghouse says these are closed, sanctioned practices it was designed to preserve JPMorgan’s control rather than provide open competition.
Dimon arguing against the CLARITY Act while running a token network is the argument Garlinghouse is pointing to. Meanwhile, some big banks like Citi are moving deeper into tokenizationa difference that reveals Dimon’s criticism as a method, not a principle.
