The White House is holding a stablecoins meeting and Crypto Market Structure Bill on February 10.
The white house has given a deadline of the end of February to the lawmakers and industry leaders to iron out their differences as the entire market structure bill is stagnated at one major issue.
THE ESSential issue: STABLECOIN YIELD.
The largest controversy is easy on the face of it:
Should the holders of stablecoins be permitted to realize yield?
Since the consequences of this are colossal. Banks strongly oppose it. The crypto companies are firm advocates of it.
And it is this one part that has stalled the most significant crypto bill that the U.S. has attempted to pass to date.
WHY BANKS ARE OPPOSING?
Conventional banks feel that the stablecoins that yield are likely to draw deposits away the banking system.
They argue using the simple mathematics:
Savings accounts pay 0.3%-0.4%
Checking accounts pay near 0%
Stablecoins will be able to provide 3-4 percent incentives.
A situation where stablecoins grow in proportion to yield would have the banks apprehensive that trillions of deposits would gradually exit the system.
The groups in the banking industry have cautioned members of parliament that as much as 6T and above of deposits may be lost in the long run in the event that this structure is permitted.
Why are crypto companies fighting against a ban?
Yield is a component of the business of crypto companies, particularly exchanges.
Some firms have said clearly:
Should yield be prohibited completely, they would prefer no bill to pass than a structure they consider to favor the banks on the expense of crypto.
To this extent serious has become the disagreement.
The effort to construct the wider crypto market structure has been months-old:
In July 2025, the CLARITY Act was passed by the House on a bipartisan basis.
Individual Senate committees started to write their own.
However, talks broke down after the dispute over the interest rate charged on the stablecoin went out of control.
Since then:
Markups by the committee have been delayed.
Texts in draft have been revised.
The industry backing has disintegrated.
This is the reason the White House intervened.
This is a meeting that is aimed at pushing.
In case a deal emerges, the following steps can be made:
1[?] Markup by Senator Banking Committee.
2[?] Floor vote (60) in the senate.
3[?] House Senate reconciliation.
4[?] Final bill to the President
The process cannot be initiated without a compromise over yield.
And another pressure factor:
THE 2026 MIDTERM ELECTIONS.
Unless legislation is passed before campaign season goes into high gear, the bill may be stalled to the next Congress. That would roll out full implementation years later.
So it is creating a narrow window among lawmakers.
Stablecoins have become the financial infrastructure:
Billions of hundreds in market size.
Billions of dollars of annual turnover.
Geo-liquid critical liquidity rails of crypto markets.
Regulatory transparency in the case will impact:
Exchange operations
DeFi growth
Institutional participation
Payment adoption
That is why the White House meeting of Feb 10 is a pressure point moment.
In case of stablecoin yield controversy:
The CLARITY Act path reopens
Senate movement resumes
Complete market structure law is realized.
If talks fail:
The bill is threatened to be delayed further.
Midterm politics take over
Uncertainty on regulatory front has persisted and the markets may further be weak.