White Home stablecoin assembly might unfreeze the CLARITY Act, however your USDC rewards would be the worth
The newly confirmed Feb. 10 White Home assembly on stablecoin coverage is being framed by some market observers as a step towards breaking the logjam across the CLARITY Act, a broad crypto market-structure invoice that has already run into procedural hurdles within the Senate.
In a submit on X, Milk Highway mentioned the White Home convening might assist transfer H.R. 3633 ahead after disputes over whether or not stablecoin holders ought to obtain interest-like returns.
The Senate Banking Committee’s deliberate Jan. 15 govt session to contemplate H.R. 3633 was publicly listed as “POSTPONED,” leaving the invoice and not using a present markup date on the committee calendar.
The committee had beforehand introduced it could maintain a markup that day on complete digital asset market construction laws. The announcement created an specific before-and-after second for the trade’s near-term legislative timeline.
As that markup slipped, a White Home-led stakeholder assembly on Feb. 2 ended with out settlement on stablecoin yield or rewards, with contributors planning to proceed talks.
Expectations are actually set for one more incremental spherical quite than a single definitive negotiation. For extra context on how the dispute is being framed in crypto media, see CryptoSlate’s protection of the White Home deposit-flight/yield standoff.
Stablecoin “yield” and the bank-deposit battle
The yield dispute is tied to product economics which can be already seen in client presents. Coinbase advertises “3.50% rewards on USDC” as a part of Coinbase One, whereas disclosing that the rewards price is topic to vary and might range by area.
These caveats make “yield” much less a protocol-level function than a distribution resolution and a compliance alternative. The coverage argument activates whether or not payouts are handled as a rebate or loyalty profit, a bank-like curiosity substitute, or a yield product that attracts securities-style scrutiny.
The Wall Road Journal, describing the bank-crypto conflict over these merchandise, contrasted stablecoin rewards round 3.5% with financial institution deposit charges round 0.1%. It additionally reported that the Treasury had estimated a possible $6.6 trillion drawdown in deposits beneath sure assumptions, a determine greatest handled as a situation output quite than an noticed move.
Bloomberg Regulation’s reporting described the difficulty as unresolved even after the White Home convened stakeholders. Associated: CryptoSlate’s prior protection of USDC rewards modifications beneath MiCA-aligned guidelines.
| Information level | What’s on the report | Why it issues for the invoice battle |
|---|---|---|
| USDC rewards supply | Coinbase markets “3.50% rewards on USDC,” with rate-change and area caveats | Offers lawmakers and financial institution regulators a concrete reference for “interest-like” distribution |
| Financial institution vs. stablecoin price framing | WSJ reported ~3.5% stablecoin rewards vs. ~0.1% financial institution deposit charges | Frames stablecoin balances as competitors for deposits and financial institution funding prices |
| Deposit draw situation | WSJ reported a Treasury estimate of $6.6T in potential deposit drawdown | Pushes the dispute from client advertising into systemic-scale coverage debate |
What the CLARITY Act textual content does on custody and DeFi
The legislative car on the middle of the talk is H.R. 3633, which handed the Home and was despatched to the Senate, the place it was acquired and referred to the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 18, 2025.
The invoice textual content contains an specific “Safety of Self-Custody” clause. It states customers retain the fitting to keep up {hardware} or software program wallets and to interact in direct peer-to-peer transactions, language that turns into a measuring stick for whether or not a closing compromise protects retail custody selections whereas regulating intermediaries.
The Home textual content additionally contains headings that carve out “DECENTRALIZED FINANCE ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS ACT” in modification sections touching each the Securities Trade Act and the Commodity Trade Act. That makes DeFi scope a drafting difficulty quite than an afterthought within the Home strategy.
For readers monitoring broader DeFi coverage debates, see CryptoSlate’s evaluation on DeFi adoption and 2026 regulatory stress.
The ahead path now hinges on how negotiators classify stablecoin rewards and the way that classification carries by committee textual content. One base-case end result in line with public reporting is continuation of talks that yields a partial compromise.
Beneath that path, packages branded as “rewards” might survive if tied to exercise or membership constructs, whereas “passive” balance-based payouts are constrained by statutory definitions or implementing guidelines. That will shift product design towards funds rails, card packages, and utilization incentives quite than a easy APY for holding.
A extra optimistic situation depends upon a reputable yield compromise lowering sufficient opposition for Senate Banking to re-calendar its markup. As of Feb. 9, no new date was posted to exchange the postponed Jan. 15 session, leaving timing depending on future committee motion quite than a hard and fast schedule.
A draw back path is that stablecoin yield stays a veto level, extending the hole between Home-passed textual content and a Senate course of that has already proven slippage. For associated debate on yield-bearing stablecoins in Congress, see CryptoSlate’s earlier protection of the STABLE Act markup controversy.
International constraints, implementation danger, and what to look at subsequent
For DeFi and retail customers, the sensible check shall be whether or not statutory carve-outs and self-custody protections stay intact after Senate drafting and any Home-Senate reconciliation. The Home language on self-custody and peer-to-peer transfers is specific within the present textual content.
That gives a foundation for evaluating later variations which may slender pockets rights by definitions of intermediated providers or compliance triggers. The DeFi carve-out headings present one other anchor, however their actual impact can hinge on how lawmakers and businesses outline “DeFi actions,” “management,” and intermediation.
That implementation danger issues extra if stablecoin rewards are regulated broadly. In that case, on-ramps, custodians, and interfaces turn out to be choke factors for the way yield-like worth reaches customers, even when the yield itself comes from outdoors the stablecoin issuer’s stability sheet.
The U.S. negotiation additionally sits in opposition to a worldwide baseline the place no less than one main jurisdiction has already set constraints on “curiosity” for sure crypto-asset tokens. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Property Regulation offers a reference level for limiting interest-like advantages in elements of the stablecoin class.
U.S. drafters face a aggressive tradeoff between aligning with a restrictive mannequin and allowing a rewards channel that features as money administration for crypto-native and fintech distribution. For extra MiCA context, see CryptoSlate’s reporting on MiCA licensing throughout the EU.
For now, the subsequent concrete indicators to look at are whether or not the reported Feb. 10 assembly happens and produces draft language that resolves the Feb. 2 impasse.
One other key marker is whether or not Senate Banking posts a brand new date to exchange the postponed Jan. 15 markup that was meant to contemplate H.R. 3633.