Disclaimer: Information found on CryptoreNews is those of writers quoted. It does not represent the opinions of CryptoreNews on whether to sell, buy or hold any investments. You are advised to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Use provided information at your own risk.
CryptoreNews covers fintech, blockchain and Bitcoin bringing you the latest crypto news and analyses on the future of money.
White House discussion may revive the crypto CLARITY Act this week, though crypto incentives are expected to be a trade-off.
White House stablecoin meeting may revive the CLARITY Act, but your USDC rewards could be the cost
The recently scheduled Feb. 10 White House meeting on stablecoin policy is being perceived by some market analysts as a potential breakthrough in the stalemate surrounding the CLARITY Act, a comprehensive crypto market-structure bill that has already faced procedural challenges in the Senate.
In a post on X, Milk Road indicated that the White House gathering could facilitate progress on H.R. 3633 following disagreements over whether stablecoin holders should earn interest-like returns.
The Senate Banking Committee’s anticipated Jan. 15 executive session to review H.R. 3633 was officially marked as “POSTPONED,” leaving the bill without a current markup date on the committee’s agenda.
The committee had previously announced plans to conduct a markup on that date concerning extensive digital asset market structure legislation. This announcement created a distinct before-and-after moment for the industry’s immediate legislative timeline.
As that markup was delayed, a White House-led stakeholder meeting on Feb. 2 concluded without consensus on stablecoin yield or rewards, with participants intending to continue discussions.
Current expectations are set for another incremental round of discussions rather than a single conclusive negotiation. For further context on how the dispute is being portrayed in crypto media, refer to CryptoSlate’s coverage of the White House deposit-flight/yield standoff.
Related Reading
White House sets February deadline to settle $6.6 trillion fight between Coinbase and banks
The “crypto” sector is now divided, and the outcome will set the precedent for future disputes regarding custody, DeFi, and taxation.
Feb 4, 2026 · Gino Matos
Stablecoin “yield” and the bank-deposit conflict
The yield dispute is linked to product economics that are already apparent in consumer offerings. Coinbase promotes “3.50% rewards on USDC” as part of Coinbase One, while noting that the rewards rate is subject to change and may differ by region.
These disclaimers suggest that “yield” is less a feature at the protocol level and more a decision regarding distribution and compliance. The policy debate centers on whether payouts are classified as a rebate or loyalty benefit, a bank-like interest substitute, or a yield product that attracts scrutiny akin to securities.
The Wall Street Journal, in its coverage of the bank-crypto conflict over these products, compared stablecoin rewards of approximately 3.5% with bank deposit rates around 0.1%. It also reported that the Treasury had projected a potential $6.6 trillion reduction in deposits under certain assumptions, a figure best viewed as a scenario output rather than an actual flow.
Bloomberg Law’s reporting indicated that the issue remains unresolved even after the White House convened stakeholders. Related: CryptoSlate’s previous coverage of USDC rewards changes under MiCA-aligned regulations.
Related Reading
Coinbase to halt USDC earn program on MiCA compliant regions
The exchange cites the new requirements for e-money tokens as the reason for the USDC-related service discontinuation.
Nov 28, 2024 · Gino Matos
| Data point | What’s on the record | Why it matters for the bill fight |
|---|---|---|
| USDC rewards offer | Coinbase promotes “3.50% rewards on USDC,” with rate-change and region disclaimers | Provides lawmakers and bank regulators a tangible reference for “interest-like” distribution |
| Bank vs. stablecoin rate framing | WSJ reported ~3.5% stablecoin rewards vs. ~0.1% bank deposit rates | Positions stablecoin balances as competition for deposits and bank funding costs |
| Deposit draw scenario | WSJ reported a Treasury estimate of $6.6T in potential deposit drawdown | Elevates the dispute from consumer marketing to systemic-scale policy discussion |
What the CLARITY Act text addresses on custody and DeFi
The legislative vehicle central to the discussion is H.R. 3633, which passed the House and was forwarded to the Senate, where it was received and referred to the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 18, 2025.
The bill text contains a specific “Protection of Self-Custody” clause. It asserts that consumers retain the right to maintain hardware or software wallets and to engage in direct peer-to-peer transactions, language that serves as a benchmark for whether a final agreement safeguards retail custody options while regulating intermediaries.
The House text also features headings that delineate “DECENTRALIZED FINANCE ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS ACT” in amendment sections related to both the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. This positions DeFi scope as a drafting concern rather than an afterthought in the House’s approach.
Related Posts
For readers monitoring broader DeFi policy discussions, see CryptoSlate’s analysis on DeFi adoption and regulatory pressures in 2026.
Related Reading
Will DeFi adoption officially end in 2026?
MiCA may hinder crypto growth while favoring larger entities through regulatory challenges and centralization.
Jan 2, 2026 · Shane Neagle
The future trajectory now depends on how negotiators categorize stablecoin rewards and how that classification is reflected in committee text. One likely outcome consistent with public reporting is a continuation of discussions that leads to a partial compromise.
Under that scenario, programs labeled as “rewards” could persist if linked to activity or membership structures, while “passive” balance-based payouts may be restricted by statutory definitions or implementing regulations. This would redirect product design towards payment rails, card programs, and usage incentives rather than a straightforward APY for holding.
A more favorable scenario relies on a credible yield compromise that alleviates enough opposition for Senate Banking to reschedule its markup. As of Feb. 9, no new date has been announced to replace the postponed Jan. 15 session, leaving the timing contingent on future committee actions rather than a set timetable.
A less favorable outcome is that stablecoin yield remains a contentious issue, prolonging the divide between the House-passed text and a Senate process that has already demonstrated delays. For related discussions on yield-bearing stablecoins in Congress, see CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of the STABLE Act markup controversy.
Related Reading
House Committee to review STABLE Act amid controversy over yield-bearing stablecoins ban
The markup may address an amendment concerning the prohibition of yield-bearing stablecoins.
Apr 1, 2025 · Gino Matos
Global constraints, implementation risk, and what to monitor next
For DeFi and retail users, the practical evaluation will be whether statutory exemptions and self-custody protections remain intact following Senate drafting and any reconciliation between the House and Senate. The House language on self-custody and peer-to-peer transfers is clearly stated in the current text.
This provides a foundation for assessing later versions that might restrict wallet rights through definitions of intermediated services or compliance triggers. The DeFi carve-out headings offer another point of reference, but their actual impact can depend on how lawmakers and agencies define “DeFi activities,” “control,” and intermediation.
This implementation risk becomes more significant if stablecoin rewards are broadly regulated. In such a case, on-ramps, custodians, and interfaces could become bottlenecks for how yield-like value reaches users, even when the yield itself originates from outside the stablecoin issuer’s balance sheet.
The U.S. negotiations also occur against a global backdrop where at least one major jurisdiction has already established restrictions on “interest” for certain crypto-asset tokens. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation serves as a reference point for limiting interest-like benefits within parts of the stablecoin category.
U.S. drafters face a competitive trade-off between aligning with a restrictive model and allowing a rewards channel that functions as cash management for crypto-native and fintech distribution. For additional context on MiCA, see CryptoSlate’s reporting on MiCA licensing across the EU.
Related Reading
EU grants MiCA licenses to 53 crypto firms, Tether and Binance left behind
More than 50 firms have obtained MiCA licenses, overcoming jurisdictional obstacles across 30 EEA countries.
Jul 7, 2025 · Oluwapelumi Adejumo
Currently, the next concrete indicators to observe are whether the anticipated Feb. 10 meeting takes place and yields draft language that resolves the deadlock from Feb. 2.
Another significant marker is whether the Senate Banking Committee announces a new date to replace the postponed Jan. 15 markup intended to review H.R. 3633.
The post White House meeting may revive the crypto CLARITY Act this week, but crypto rewards likely to be the cost appeared first on CryptoSlate.
