‘Attempts to hijack the CLARITY Act are shameful’: Trump advisor slams banks

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-03-11Last updated on 2026-03-11

Abstract

White House advisor Patrick Witt criticizes the banking lobby for opposing the pro-innovation CLARITY Act, calling attempts to turn it into an anti-competition bill "shameful." The dispute centers on stablecoin rewards, which banks argue create an uneven playing field and risk deposit flight, potentially reducing bank lending. Stablecoin issuers view restrictions as a threat to their business model and cite competition with China's digital yuan. Lawmakers propose limiting types of stablecoin reward activities as a compromise, but the bill's future remains uncertain without resolution.

The White House continues to express disappointment with the banking lobby’s hardline against the crypto market structure bill, the CLARITY Act.

The two industries, the crypto and banking sectors, have failed to reach an amicable agreement on stablecoin rewards. The stablecoin rewards issue has stalled the bill’s progress since early this year.

At a recent bankers’ summit in Washington, the industry maintained a hardline stance against any compromise on the bill, prompting criticism from the White House.

In response, Trump’s crypto advisor, Patrick Witt, said,

“The CLARITY Act must remain a pro-innovation piece of legislation. Attempts to hijack the legislative process and turn it into an anti-competition bill are shameful.”

Bankers’ plea

Witt’s statement followed Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, an advocacy group, who framed the current dispute as ‘anti-competitive.’

During the Washington summit, Nichols cautioned,

“Our industry welcomes competition and innovation...what we don’t support is an uneven playing field.”

Since last year, the traditional banking sector has maintained that stablecoin rewards will lead to deposit flight and harm the financial system.

The industry argues that the U.S. stablecoin law, the GENIUS Act, created a loophole that allows intermediaries to share yield with users, thereby bypassing the direct reward ban imposed on issuers.

To mitigate this, banks want the ban extended to intermediaries as well. This would mean amending the GENIUS Act or imposing the ban in the CLARITY Act.

However, stablecoin issuers view this as a threat to their business model. In fact, beyond disrupting their model, supporters view stablecoin yield as a national security issue, citing China’s push in the sector with rewards for digital yuan.

Proposed CLARITY Act compromise

Senators have tried to bring the two sides into a compromise on the issue.

During the banks’ summit, Democrat Senator for Maryland, Angela Alsobrooks, stressed that each faction will be ‘just a little bit unhappy’ but will help push for clear rules for the sector.

“We absolutely have to have these protections to prevent the deposit flight, but we’re going to probably have to make some compromises.”

Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that the stablecoin yield could reduce bank lending by $65 billion to $1.26 trillion, because the GENIUS Act prohibits lending of stablecoin reserves. The CRS urged banks to offer higher interest rates to depositors to remain competitive.

The compromise lawmakers have been pushing for is to narrow the types of stablecoin activity crypto platforms can allow to receive stablecoin rewards.

However, the banks’ opposition has faced a series of criticisms from the White House for the past few days. As such, the path forward for the CLARITY Act remains uncertain unless the concerned stakeholders resolve the stablecoin yield issue.


Final Summary

  • White House slammed banks for framing the CLARITY Act as an ‘anti-competition’ bill.
  • The banking industry reiterated its concerns about stablecoin yields during a recent meeting.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main criticism expressed by Trump's crypto advisor, Patrick Witt, regarding the CLARITY Act?

APatrick Witt criticized attempts to hijack the legislative process and turn the CLARITY Act into an anti-competition bill, stating that such attempts are shameful and that the act must remain a pro-innovation piece of legislation.

QWhy does the banking industry oppose stablecoin rewards according to the article?

AThe banking industry opposes stablecoin rewards because they believe it will lead to deposit flight and harm the financial system, arguing that the GENIUS Act created a loophole allowing intermediaries to share yield with users, bypassing the direct reward ban on issuers.

QWhat compromise have lawmakers proposed regarding stablecoin rewards in the CLARITY Act?

ALawmakers have proposed narrowing the types of stablecoin activity that crypto platforms can allow to receive stablecoin rewards as a compromise to address concerns from both the banking and crypto sectors.

QWhat did the American Bankers Association president, Rob Nichols, say about competition during the Washington summit?

ARob Nichols stated that the banking industry welcomes competition and innovation but does not support an uneven playing field, framing the current dispute over the CLARITY Act as 'anti-competitive'.

QAccording to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), what impact could stablecoin yield have on bank lending?

AThe Congressional Research Service estimates that stablecoin yield could reduce bank lending by $65 billion to $1.26 trillion because the GENIUS Act prohibits lending of stablecoin reserves, and they urged banks to offer higher interest rates to depositors to remain competitive.

Related Reads

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手20m ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手20m ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit2h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit2h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手4h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手4h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit5h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit5h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片