In the USA, discussions on the bill regulating the cryptocurrency market continue to be delayed. One of the key contentious points: the yield on stablecoins.
Senators involved in the negotiations say that a compromise version may be published as early as this week. But at the same time, banking groups are signaling that the current version does not satisfy them.
The main question in the dispute: can cryptocurrency exchanges pay yields to stablecoin holders through reward programs.
It is precisely because of this point that the Clarity Act has not been able to advance for several months, which is supposed to set the rules for the entire structure of the crypto market.
One of the key participants in the negotiations remains Senator Thom Tillis, who is working on the text together with Senator Angela Olisbrooks. According to him, a draft agreement may be published by the end of the week.
He noted that progress has been made regarding circumventing regulations, but issues of control and law enforcement are still being discussed:
“We have made progress on the issue of circumventing regulations, but control issues remain a work in progress.”
Tillis also indicated that part of the criticism may be related to the fact that stakeholders have not yet seen the full text of the document.
At the same time, banks are already openly expressing discontent. Earlier, the American Bankers Association criticized the report of the Council of Economic Advisers at the White House.
The document stated that banning yields on stablecoins would increase bank lending by only 0.02%. Banks disagreed and stated that the study 'addresses the wrong question.'
Banks, for their part, believe that the risks are significantly 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.
Against this backdrop, pressure on lawmakers is only increasing. The Clarity Act has less and less time: senators warn that the document needs to be passed by May, otherwise it may 'hang' until the midterm elections.
The head of the Ministry of Finance, Scott Bessent, also called for an acceleration of the process. He criticized cryptocurrency companies that oppose compromise, calling them 'nihilists.'
Much will depend on the publication of the text itself. After its release, cryptocurrency exchanges, including Coinbase, may have to reconsider how yield programs for stablecoins are structured.
This also applies to current models. For example, in conjunction with Circle, USDC holders are currently receiving around 4% annual returns, and such schemes may come under question.
Where the boundary lies
Despite the disputes surrounding yields, overall support for the bill remains. Discussions are tough, but this does not break the general mood in Congress.
According to the head of the Blockchain Association, Summer Mersinger, the initiative has serious support from both sides:
“The bill on market structure receives significant support from both parties because everyone understands the need for clear and stable rules for digital assets. Its adoption will strengthen the positions of the U.S. and provide more certainty for 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, CEO of Reya Simon Jones, believes that the banks' arguments are becoming weaker:
“If the economists at the White House themselves believe that allowing yields on stablecoins will increase lending by only 0.02%, it is difficult to continue talking about a serious threat to the banking system.”
The banking lobby, judging by the reaction, is already arguing not so much over numbers as over market positions. According to industry participants, the conflict is increasingly moving into the realm of competition.
At the same time, even the White House report is unlikely to quickly put an end to this issue. It does not guarantee that the parties will be able to reach an agreement.
One possible compromise is the division of yield. For example, models may be allowed where income is generated through active operations, but passive payments may be limited. However, the risk of a complete ban still remains.
If this happens, some exchanges may simply not accept such conditions.
Moreover, the consequences may extend beyond the United States. It all hinges not so much on the fact of yield itself, but on where and under whose control it will be available.
If regulation turns out to be too strict, users and liquidity will begin to move to jurisdictions where such mechanisms are already allowed.
#blockchain #Circle #CLARITYAct #USDC #Write2Earn
