In the US, discussions on the cryptocurrency market regulation bill continue to be delayed. One of the key contentious issues is the yield on stablecoins.
Senators involved in the negotiations say that a compromise version could be published as early as this week. But at the same time, banking groups are making it clear that the current version does not satisfy them.
The main question in the debate is whether crypto exchanges can pay yield to stablecoin holders through rewards programs.
It is precisely because of this point that it has not been possible to advance the Clarity Act for several months, which is supposed to set the rules for the entire crypto market structure.
One of the key participants in the negotiations remains Senator Thom Tillis, who is working on the text together with Senator Angela Alsobrooks. According to him, a draft agreement could be published by the end of the week.
He noted that progress has been made on rule circumvention, but issues of oversight and law enforcement are still being discussed:
“We have made progress on the issue of rule circumvention, but oversight issues remain under discussion.”
Tillis also indicated that some criticism may be due to the fact that stakeholders have not yet seen the full text of the document.
Meanwhile, banks are already openly expressing dissatisfaction. Earlier, the American Bankers Association criticized the report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
The document stated that banning stablecoin yield would increase bank lending by only 0.02%. Banks disagreed and said the study “addresses the wrong question.”
Banks, in turn, believe that the risks are greatly underestimated. The American Bankers Association stated that the calculations are based on the current stablecoin market of about $300 billion and do not take into account what will happen if such assets grow to $1–2 trillion.
See Also: Interest on U.S. Debt Becomes the Main Budget Problem
Against this backdrop, pressure on lawmakers is only increasing. The Clarity Act is running out of time: senators warn that the document must be passed by May, otherwise it could “stall” until the midterm elections.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also called for the process to be accelerated. He criticized crypto companies that oppose the compromise, calling them “nihilists.”
At the same time, much will depend on the publication of the text itself. After it is released, crypto exchanges, including Coinbase, may have to reconsider how their stablecoin yield programs are structured.
This also applies to current models. For example, in partnership with Circle, USDC holders currently receive about 4% annually, and such schemes may be in question.
Where the Line Is Drawn
Despite the debate over yield, overall support for the bill remains. Discussions are tough, but this does not break the general mood in Congress.
According to Blockchain Association head Summer Mersinger, the initiative has strong support from both sides:
“The market structure bill is receiving significant bipartisan support because everyone understands the need for clear and stable rules for digital assets. Its adoption will strengthen the US position and provide more certainty to both companies and users.”
The main question now is whether the position of the White House and its economists will change the situation.
One industry participant, Reya CEO Simon Jones, believes that the banks’ arguments are becoming weaker:
“If White House economists themselves believe that allowing stablecoin yield would increase lending by only 0.02%, it is difficult to continue talking about a serious threat to the banking system.”
Judging by the reaction, the banking lobby is already arguing not so much about the numbers as about market positions. According to industry participants, the conflict is increasingly shifting into the realm of competition.
At the same time, even the White House report is unlikely to quickly resolve the issue. By itself, it does not guarantee that the parties will be able to reach an agreement.
One possible compromise is to split the yield. For example, they may allow models where yield is generated through active operations but limit passive payouts. However, the risk of a complete ban still remains.
See Also: Bitcoin Loses Ground After Hormuz Blockade, Oil Rises Above $100
If this happens, some exchanges may simply not accept such conditions.
Moreover, the consequences may extend beyond the US. The issue is not so much the fact of yield itself, but where and under whose control it will be available.
If regulation turns out to be too strict, users and liquidity will start moving to jurisdictions where such mechanisms are already allowed.
