Negotiations between the crypto industry and the banking lobby have entered the final stage. By the end of the month, the parties must agree on the text of the bill — and the main stumbling block has not yet been resolved.
The Third Meeting This Month — and First Signs of Convergence
On February 20, White House Crypto Advisor Executive Director Patrick Witt wrote on X: the meeting the day before was a “big step forward,” and if constructive dialogue continues, he expects to meet the deadline by the end of the month.
This is already the third such meeting in February. The first took place on February 2 — at that time, the White House instructed representatives of traditional finance and the crypto market to propose specific amendments to the bill.
The second, on February 10, ended without result: banks put forward strict principles prohibiting the payment of yield on stablecoins.
At the third meeting on February 19, negotiations dragged on for more than two hours — organizers collected participants’ phones to focus the discussion.
The Essence of the Dispute: Can Stablecoins Pay Interest
At the center of the disagreement is whether stablecoin issuers have the right to pay rewards tied to account balances. The banking side insists on a ban: in their logic, a yield-bearing stablecoin effectively competes with deposits, undermining the traditional funding model.
The crypto industry objects: limiting yield deprives American consumers of a competitive product and slows sector development. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly stated before the meeting that he expects an outcome beneficial to all three parties — the industry, banks, and consumers.
The proposed anti-circumvention provisions of the bill give the SEC, Treasury, and CFTC the authority to limit payments on “inactive” balances. The penalty for violation is $500,000 per day for each episode. Such wording virtually excludes any form of passive yield for stablecoin holders.
The Industry Awaits ‘Clarity’
Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty noted after the February 19 meeting that the parties were working through specific wording of the text — not just discussing positions. Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal described the dialogue as constructive and cooperative.
Both comments point to a significant shift compared to the February deadlock. At that time, the parties disagreed on fundamental positions. Now, work is underway on the specific language of the document — a more productive stage.
The bill, provisionally titled Clarity, is intended to establish a regulatory framework for both stablecoins and the overall market structure of digital assets. Its passage would be the first comprehensive crypto regulatory act in the U.S.
The Deadline as a Test of Serious Intentions
The end of February is not an arbitrary date. It signals that the administration sees the negotiations as a priority, not a drawn-out consultative process. Witt made it clear: the deadline will be met if both sides participate in good faith.
If an agreement is reached, U.S. crypto regulation will get its first concrete legislative outline after years of uncertainty. If talks stall again, pressure on the industry will increase, and the issue will move into a tougher regulatory context. Both sides have high enough stakes to seek compromise.
Read More: Bitcoin Drops 5% in 24 Hours; Whales Sell, Buyers Lock in Losses
