Перейти к основному контенту

The $6.6T Stablecoin Yield War: Why Banks and Crypto Are Fighting Over Your Interest

· 12 мин чтения
Dora Noda
Dora Noda
Software Engineer

Behind closed doors at the White House on February 2, 2026, the future of money came down to a single question: Should your stablecoins earn interest?

The answer will determine whether a multitrillion-dollar payments revolution empowers consumers or whether banks maintain their century-old monopoly on deposit yields. Representatives from the American Bankers Association sat across from Coinbase executives, both sides dug in. No agreement was reached. The White House issued a directive: find compromise by end of February, or the CLARITY Act—crypto's most important regulatory bill—dies.

This isn't just about policy. It's about control over the emerging architecture of digital finance.

The Summit That Changed Nothing​

The February 2 White House meeting, chaired by President Trump's crypto adviser Patrick Witt, was supposed to break the stalemate. Instead, it crystallized the divide.

On one side: the American Bankers Association (ABA) and Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), representing institutions holding trillions in consumer deposits. Their position is unequivocal—stablecoin "rewards" that look like interest threaten deposit flight and credit creation. They're urging Congress to "close the loophole."

On the other: the Blockchain Association, The Digital Chamber, and companies like Coinbase, who argue that offering yield on stablecoins is innovation, not evasion. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has called the banking sector's opposition anti-competitive, stating publicly that "people should be able to earn more on their money."

Both sides called the meeting "constructive." Both sides left without budging.

The clock is now ticking. The White House's end-of-February deadline means Congress has weeks—not months—to resolve a conflict that's been brewing since stablecoins crossed the $200 billion market cap threshold in 2024.

The GENIUS Act's Yield Ban and the "Rewards" Loophole​

To understand the fight, you need to understand the GENIUS Act—the federal stablecoin framework signed into law in July 2025. The law was revolutionary: it ended the state-by-state patchwork, established federal licensing for stablecoin issuers, and mandated full reserve backing.

It also explicitly prohibited issuers from paying yield or interest on stablecoins.

That prohibition was banks' price of admission. Stablecoins compete directly with bank deposits. If Circle or Tether could pay 4–5% yields backed by Treasury bills—while banks pay 0.5% on checking accounts—why would anyone keep money in a traditional bank?

But the GENIUS Act only banned issuers from paying yield. It said nothing about third parties.

Enter the "rewards loophole." Crypto exchanges, wallets, and DeFi protocols began offering "rewards programs" that pass Treasury yields to users. Technically, the stablecoin issuer isn't paying interest. The intermediary is. Semantics? Maybe. Legal? That's what the CLARITY Act was supposed to clarify.

Instead, the yield question has frozen progress. The House passed the CLARITY Act in mid-2025. The Senate Banking Committee has held it for months, unable to resolve whether "rewards" should be permitted or banned outright.

Banks say any third party paying rewards tied to stablecoin balances effectively converts a payment instrument into a savings product—circumventing the GENIUS Act's intent. Crypto firms counter that rewards are distinct from interest and restricting them stifles innovation that benefits consumers.

Why Banks Are Terrified​

The banking sector's opposition isn't philosophical—it's existential.

Standard Chartered analysts projected that if stablecoins grow to $2 trillion by 2028, they could cannibalize $680 billion in bank deposits. That's deposits banks use to fund loans, manage liquidity, and generate revenue from net interest margins.

Now imagine those stablecoins pay competitive yields. The deposit flight accelerates. Community banks—which rely heavily on local deposits—face the greatest pressure. The ABA and ICBA aren't defending billion-dollar Wall Street giants; they're defending 4,000+ community banks that would struggle to compete with algorithmically optimized, 24/7, globally accessible stablecoin yields.

The fear is justified. In early 2026, stablecoin circulation exceeded $250 billion, with projections reaching $500–$600 billion by 2028 (JPMorgan's conservative estimate) or even $1 trillion (Circle's optimistic forecast). Tokenized assets—including stablecoins—could hit $2–$16 trillion by 2030, according to Boston Consulting Group.

If even a fraction of that capital flow comes from bank deposits, the credit system destabilizes. Banks fund mortgages, small business loans, and infrastructure through deposits. Disintermediate deposits, and you disintermediate credit.

That's the banking argument: stablecoin yields are a systemic risk dressed up as consumer empowerment.

Why Crypto Refuses to Yield​

Coinbase and its allies aren't backing down because they believe banks are arguing in bad faith.

Brian Armstrong framed the issue as positive-sum capitalism: let competition play out. If banks want to retain deposits, offer better products. Stablecoins that pay yields "put more money in consumers' pockets," he's argued at Davos and in public statements throughout January 2026.

The crypto sector also points to international precedent. The GENIUS Act's ban on issuer-paid yield is stricter than frameworks in the EU (MiCA), UK, Singapore, Hong Kong, and UAE—all of which regulate stablecoins as payment instruments but don't prohibit third-party reward structures.

While the U.S. debates, other jurisdictions are capturing market share. European and Asian stablecoin issuers increasingly pursue banking-like charters that allow integrated yield products. If U.S. policy bans rewards entirely, American firms lose competitive advantage in a global race for digital dollar dominance.

There's also a principled argument: stablecoins are programmable. Yield, in the crypto world, isn't just a feature—it's composability. DeFi protocols rely on yield-bearing stablecoins to power lending markets, liquidity pools, and derivatives. Ban rewards, and you ban a foundational DeFi primitive.

Coinbase's 2026 roadmap makes this explicit. Armstrong outlined plans to build an "everything exchange" offering crypto, equities, prediction markets, and commodities. Stablecoins are the connective tissue—the settlement layer for 24/7 trading across asset classes. If stablecoins can't earn yields, their utility collapses relative to tokenized money market funds and other alternatives.

The crypto sector sees the yield fight as banks using regulation to suppress competition they couldn't win in the market.

The CLARITY Act's Crossroads​

The CLARITY Act was supposed to deliver regulatory certainty. Passed by the House in mid-2025, it aims to clarify jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, define digital asset custody standards, and establish market structure for exchanges.

But the stablecoin yield provision has become a poison pill. Senate Banking Committee drafts have oscillated between permitting rewards with disclosure requirements and banning them outright. Lobbying from both sides has been relentless.

Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the White House Crypto Council, recently stated he believes President Trump is preparing to sign the CLARITY Act by April 3, 2026—if Congress can pass it. The end-of-February deadline for compromise isn't arbitrary. If banks and crypto can't agree on yield language, senators lose political cover to advance the bill.

The stakes extend beyond stablecoins. The CLARITY Act unlocks pathways for tokenized equities, prediction markets, and other blockchain-native financial products. Delay the CLARITY Act, and you delay the entire U.S. digital asset roadmap.

Industry leaders on both sides acknowledge the meeting was productive, but productivity without progress is just expensive conversation. The White House has made clear: compromise, or the bill dies.

What Compromise Could Look Like​

If neither side budges, the CLARITY Act fails. But what does middle ground look like?

One proposal gaining traction: tiered restrictions. Stablecoin rewards could be permitted for amounts above a certain threshold (e.g., $10,000 or $25,000), treating them like brokerage sweeps or money market accounts. Below that threshold, stablecoins remain payment-only instruments. This protects small-balance depositors while allowing institutional and high-net-worth users to access yield.

Another option: mandatory disclosure and consumer protection standards. Rewards could be allowed, but intermediaries must clearly disclose that stablecoin holdings aren't FDIC-insured, aren't guaranteed, and carry smart contract and counterparty risk. This mirrors the regulatory approach for crypto lending platforms and staking yields.

A third path: explicit carve-outs for DeFi. Decentralized protocols could offer programmatic yields (e.g., Aave, Compound), while centralized custodians (Coinbase, Binance) face stricter restrictions. This preserves DeFi's innovation while addressing banks' concerns about centralized platforms competing directly with deposits.

Each compromise has trade-offs. Tiered restrictions create complexity and potential for regulatory arbitrage. Disclosure-based frameworks rely on consumer sophistication—a shaky foundation given crypto's history of retail losses. DeFi carve-outs raise enforcement questions, as decentralized protocols often lack clear legal entities to regulate.

But the alternative—no compromise—is worse. The U.S. cedes stablecoin leadership to jurisdictions with clearer rules. Builders relocate. Capital follows.

The Global Context: While the U.S. Debates, Others Decide​

The irony of the White House summit is that the rest of the world isn't waiting.

In the EU, MiCA regulations treat stablecoins as e-money, supervised by banking authorities but without explicit bans on third-party yield mechanisms. The UK Financial Conduct Authority is consulting on a framework that permits stablecoin yields with appropriate risk disclosures. Singapore's Monetary Authority has licensed stablecoin issuers that integrate with banks, allowing deposit-stablecoin hybrids.

Meanwhile, tokenized assets are accelerating globally. BlackRock's BUIDL fund has surpassed $1.8 billion in tokenized Treasuries. Ondo Finance, a regulated RWA platform, recently cleared an SEC investigation and expanded offerings. Major banks—JPMorgan, HSBC, UBS—are piloting tokenized deposits and securities on private blockchains like the Canton Network.

These aren't fringe experiments. They're the new architecture for institutional finance. And the U.S.—the world's largest financial market—is stuck debating whether consumers should earn 4% on stablecoins.

If the CLARITY Act fails, international competitors fill the vacuum. The dollar's dominance in stablecoin markets (90%+ of all stablecoins are USD-pegged) could erode if regulatory uncertainty drives issuers offshore. That's not just a crypto issue—it's a monetary policy issue.

What Happens Next​

February is decision month. The White House's deadline forces action. Three scenarios:

Scenario 1: Compromise by End of February Banks and crypto agree on tiered restrictions or disclosure frameworks. The Senate Banking Committee advances the CLARITY Act in March. President Trump signs by early April. Stablecoin markets stabilize, institutional adoption accelerates, and the U.S. maintains leadership in digital dollar infrastructure.

Scenario 2: Deadline Missed, Bill Delayed No agreement by February 28. The CLARITY Act stalls in committee through Q2 2026. Regulatory uncertainty persists. Projects delay U.S. launches. Capital flows to EU and Asia. The bill eventually passes in late 2026 or early 2027, but momentum is lost.

Scenario 3: Bill Fails Entirely Irreconcilable differences kill the CLARITY Act. The U.S. reverts to patchwork state-level regulation and SEC enforcement actions. Stablecoin innovation moves offshore. Banks win short-term deposit retention; crypto wins long-term market structure. The U.S. loses both.

The smart money is on Scenario 1, but compromise is never guaranteed. The ABA and ICBA represent thousands of institutions with regional political influence. Coinbase and the Blockchain Association represent an emerging industry with growing lobbying power. Both have reasons to hold firm.

Patrick Witt's optimism about an April 3 signing suggests the White House believes a deal is possible. But the February 2 meeting's lack of progress suggests the gap is wider than anticipated.

Why Developers Should Care​

If you're building in Web3, the outcome of this fight directly impacts your infrastructure choices.

Stablecoin yields affect liquidity for DeFi protocols. If U.S. regulations ban or severely restrict rewards, protocols may need to restructure incentive mechanisms or geofence U.S. users. That's operational complexity and reduced addressable market.

If the CLARITY Act passes with yield provisions intact, on-chain dollar markets gain legitimacy. More institutional capital flows into DeFi. Stablecoins become the settlement layer not just for crypto trading, but for prediction markets, tokenized equities, and real-world asset (RWA) collateral.

If the CLARITY Act fails, uncertainty persists. Projects in legal gray areas face enforcement risk. Fundraising becomes harder. Builders consider jurisdictions with clearer rules.

For infrastructure providers, the stakes are equally high. Reliable, compliant stablecoin settlement requires robust data access—transaction indexing, real-time balance queries, and cross-chain visibility.

BlockEden.xyz provides enterprise-grade API infrastructure for stablecoin-powered applications, supporting real-time settlement, multi-chain indexing, and compliance-ready data feeds. Explore our stablecoin infrastructure solutions to build on foundations designed for the emerging digital dollar economy.

The Bigger Picture: Who Controls Digital Money?​

The White House stablecoin summit isn't really about interest rates. It's about who controls the architecture of money in the digital age.

Banks want stablecoins to remain payment rails—fast, cheap, global—but not competitors for yield-bearing deposits. Crypto wants stablecoins to become programmable money: composable, yield-generating, and integrated into DeFi, tokenized assets, and autonomous markets.

Both visions are partially correct. Stablecoins are payment rails—$15+ trillion in annual transaction volume proves that. But they're also programmable financial primitives that unlock new markets.

The question isn't whether stablecoins should pay yields. The question is whether the U.S. financial system can accommodate innovation that challenges century-old business models without fracturing the credit system that funds the real economy.

February's deadline forces that question into the open. The answer will define not just 2026's regulatory landscape, but the next decade of digital finance.

Sources:

Share on Twitter