Wall Street isn’t just a balance sheet. Supporting the Market Structure Bill and opposing interest payments on stablecoins can coexist. Asset management firms like BlackRock and Fidelity, as well as investment banks involved in trading, custody, and tokenization, want the *CLARITY Act* to clearly define the boundaries and licensing pathways for the SEC and CFTC. Once the market becomes compliant, they can increase management fees, transaction fees, and custody fees—when the pie gets bigger, there’s more money to make. Commercial banks, on the other hand, value deposits as the cheapest source of funding. If stablecoin wallets can pay interest based on balances, customers might move their checking and savings accounts over, driving up banks’ funding costs and squeezing their net interest margins and lending capacity. On May 8, six banking associations jointly warned about “deposit outflows” and expressed concerns that platforms might repackage interest as cashback or rewards to bypass the ban. So, the latest draft of the bill bans earning interest simply by holding stablecoins, while allowing rewards tied to real transactions and activities. The SEC, CFTC, and Treasury will then draw the lines with regulations. The debate is stuck here: what counts as cashback, and what’s just rebranded deposit interest? Asset managers want to turn crypto into a new fee-generating business, while deposit banks don’t want it to become a new type of savings account. Everyone wants rules—it’s just that they’re trying to protect different parts of their income statements.