Author: Blockchain Knight

The stablecoin policy meeting held by the White House on February 10 is seen as a key step in breaking the deadlock of the CLARITY Act (HR 3633).

The bill has passed the House of Representatives and was originally scheduled for review by the Senate Banking Committee on January 15 but has been postponed, with no clear agenda currently.

Previously, the stakeholder meeting on February 2 did not reach a consensus on stablecoin yields or rewards, and the market expects to see incremental negotiations rather than a one-time final agreement, with the characterization of stablecoin "yields" becoming the core legislative controversy.

The core of the dispute lies in the legal characterization of stablecoin rewards, whether they are rebates/loyalty rewards, substitutes for bank interest, or yield products that require securities-style scrutiny.

Coinbase promotes a 3.50% reward for USDC in Coinbase One (with variable rates and regional restrictions), while bank deposit rates are about 0.1%. The Wall Street Journal points out that this difference has sparked strong opposition from banks, with the U.S. Treasury even predicting that in extreme cases, deposits could decrease by $6.6 trillion, pushing the dispute from a product level to a systemic policy height.

The text of HR 3633 passed by the House includes two key provisions:

First, a clear "self-custody protection" that guarantees consumers the right to maintain hardware/software wallets and engage in peer-to-peer transactions;

Second, the exclusion of "decentralized financial activities not subject to this Act" from certain regulations.

This lays the groundwork for subsequent version assessments, with future revisions potentially narrowing wallet permissions by defining intermediary services, while the actual effect of the DeFi exception clause will depend on the definitions of "DeFi activities," "control," and the role of intermediaries.

Three possible outcomes for negotiations are emerging: the basic result is a partial compromise, where rewards linked to activities/membership mechanisms may be retained, while passive yields based on balances will be limited, pushing product design towards using incentives rather than holding yields.

An optimistic scenario is reaching a compromise on yields, prompting the Senate to reschedule the review agenda; an unfavorable situation is the continued deadlock over yield disputes, further widening the gap between the bill text and Senate procedures.

If stablecoin rewards are subject to extensive regulation, access channels and custodians may become bottlenecks for users to obtain yields; the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation provides a reference for limiting similar interest yields, and U.S. drafters face a dilemma between adhering to restrictive models and preserving reward channels.

For users, the key test lies in whether self-custody protection and DeFi exemptions remain effective after Senate revisions and negotiations between the two chambers.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。