Written by: Blockchain Knight
The stablecoin policy meeting held by the White House on February 10 is seen as a crucial step to break the deadlock on the "CLARITY Act" (HR 3633).
The bill has passed the House of Representatives. Originally scheduled for consideration by the Senate Banking Committee on January 15, it was postponed and currently has no clear schedule.
Following the White House stakeholder meeting on February 2, which failed to reach consensus on stablecoin yields or rewards, market expectations are for incremental negotiations rather than a one-time final agreement. The classification of stablecoin "yields" has become the core legislative dispute.
The core of the dispute lies in the legal classification of stablecoin rewards: whether they are rebates/loyalty rewards, a substitute for bank interest, or a yield product requiring securities-like scrutiny.
Coinbase advertises that USDC can earn a 3.50% reward (variable rate with regional restrictions) in Coinbase One, compared to bank deposit rates of around 0.1%. The Wall Street Journal points out this disparity has sparked strong opposition from banks. The U.S. Treasury even predicts that in extreme scenarios, deposits could decrease by $6.6 trillion, elevating the dispute from a product-level issue to a systemic policy height.
The text of HR 3633 passed by the House contains two key provisions:
First, explicit "self-custody protection," safeguarding consumers' rights to maintain hardware/software wallets and conduct peer-to-peer transactions;
Second, excluding "decentralized finance activities not subject to this Act" from certain regulations.
This lays the foundation for evaluating subsequent versions. Future amendments might narrow wallet permissions by defining intermediary services. The practical effect of the DeFi exception clause depends on the definitions of "DeFi activities," "control," and intermediary roles.
Negotiation prospects present three possibilities: The basic outcome is partial compromise. Rewards tied to activity/membership mechanisms might be preserved, while passive yields based on balances will be restricted, pushing product design towards usage incentives rather than holding yields.
An optimistic scenario is reaching a compromise on yields, prompting the Senate to reschedule its review. An unfavorable situation is a continued deadlock on the yield issue, further widening the gap between the bill's text and Senate procedures.
If stablecoin rewards face broad regulation, access channels and custodians could become bottlenecks for users seeking yields. The EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) provides a reference for restricting similar interest-like yields. U.S. drafters face a dilemma between following a restrictive model and preserving reward channels.
For users, the key test is whether self-custody protection and DeFi exemptions will remain effective after Senate amendments and bicameral negotiations.
