Stablecoins face yield-rule fight as CLARITY Act debated

What to Know:

• CLARITY Act triggers battle over paying yields to stablecoin holders.
• Banks oppose passing Treasury yields to holders, fearing deposit flight.

The CLARITY Act has become a proxy contest over who pays Americans for holding “digital dollars,” centering on whether stablecoin holders may receive yield-like rewards. The fight is not only about consumer payouts, but about where value from stablecoin programs ultimately accrues.

At stake is how the economics of stablecoins are allocated: whether rewards flow to holders, remain with issuers, or are constrained so deposits and their pricing power stay within banks. The answer will shape product design, competitive dynamics, and the cost of funding across the financial system.

As reported by RealClearMarkets, a coalition of bank CEOs is urging lawmakers to remove language that would let stablecoins “pass Treasury yields directly to holders,” warning that it would intensify competition for deposits and raise banks’ funding costs. That push frames stablecoin rewards as a direct challenge to the traditional deposit model.

Why it matters: deposits, consumer rewards, and SEC vs CFTC oversight

Banking groups argue that yield-bearing stablecoins could function as deposit substitutes, potentially diverting low-cost funding away from community lending. According to Cointeeth, the American Bankers Association is lobbying to restrict stablecoin interest, yields, or rewards in order to preserve the deposit-based system and its role in credit creation.

Supporters of allowing rewards counter that sharing value with holders is a fair and competitive feature of digital dollar products. As reported by CryptoSlate, the CLARITY Act debate has “morph[ed] into a battle over who gets to pay Americans yield on digital dollars, banks or stablecoin issuers.”

Oversight venue also matters. Accountable.US has questioned whether narrowing Securities and Exchange Commission authority and shifting power toward the Commodity Futures Trading Commission could change who captures financial upside, including which entities are positioned to offer or restrict stablecoin rewards.

There is a competitiveness angle as well. KuCoin News reported that Anthony Scaramucci warned prohibiting stablecoin yields could weaken the U.S. dollar’s position against foreign digital currencies, citing China’s digital yuan as a reference point for the policy trade-off.

At the time of this writing, Coinbase (COIN) recently closed near 164.32 and traded around 164.81 after-hours, based on data from Nasdaq. This market backdrop does not determine legislative outcomes, but it illustrates investor sensitivity to U.S. crypto policy signals.

Stakeholders and positions: banks, crypto firms, and watchdogs

Banks and their trade associations frame stablecoin rewards as functionally similar to deposit interest, cautioning that unfettered payouts could destabilize funding and compress net interest margins. Their position, reflected in industry letters and commentary, prioritizes deposit stability and community credit channels.

Crypto platforms emphasize consumer choice and parity with traditional cash-like products that offer returns. NationalToday reported that Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong has said the Act, in its current form, is unacceptable because it restricts stablecoin rewards, underscoring how product limits could curb user benefits.

Industry commentators argue that design choices in CLARITY could tilt value capture toward incumbents. Cointelegraph reported that Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson contends large financial institutions could absorb value that might otherwise reach retail users via yield or tokenized services, dampening innovation.

Across these camps, the core policy levers, reward permissions, issuer obligations, and SEC vs CFTC jurisdiction, will decide who “pays” and who “receives” in U.S. digital dollar markets. Reported bill summaries, trade association statements, and watchdog analyses indicate the outcome remains uncertain and highly consequential for consumers and competition.