Crypto Firms Propose Key Stablecoin Concessions To Advance CLARITY Act – Report

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-02-06Actualizado a 2026-02-06

Resumen

Crypto firms are proposing key concessions to banks in an effort to advance the stalled CLARITY Act, a major US crypto market structure bill. The main point of contention is the treatment of stablecoin rewards. Banks argue that interest-bearing stablecoins threaten the financial system and distort credit creation. In response, crypto companies have offered compromises, such as giving community banks a larger role by having them hold a portion of stablecoin reserves or issue tokens. However, not all parties agree, and it's unclear if these proposals will resolve the dispute. The Senate Banking Committee's draft, which bans interest payments to passive token holders, has faced heavy criticism from crypto leaders who argue it would kill innovation. Recent White House-mediated talks ended without a resolution, but lawmakers remain hopeful a compromise can be reached.

Crypto firms are reportedly stepping up efforts to advance the highly anticipated market structure bill by proposing potential compromises to address some of the banking sector’s concerns on stablecoins.

Crypto Firms Offer Stablecoin Compromises

On Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that multiple crypto companies have been allegedly trying to “win over” banks to salvage the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act.

The crypto bill has been stalled in the US Senate for weeks as crypto industry leaders and banks have been unable to reach an agreement on one of the bill’s main topics, stablecoin rewards, in the Senate Banking Committee’s portion of the legislation.

The US banking industry has repeatedly expressed concerns about stablecoin policies, claiming that interest payments will distort market dynamics and affect credit creation in the country. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan recently told investors that the banking sector, especially small- and medium-sized businesses, could face significant challenges if Congress does not prohibit interest-bearing stablecoins.

According to people familiar with the matter, industry participants are offering banks new concessions regarding these concerns, as part of their efforts to advance the long-awaited crypto legislation.

For instance, the firms have reportedly proposed giving community banks a larger role in the stablecoin system, allowing them to hold reserves or issue tokens through partnerships. Notably, they suggested requiring stablecoin issuers to maintain a portion of their reserves at community banks.

Not all crypto companies agree with the proposed ideas, Bloomberg sources noted, emphasizing that the two sides haven’t resolved their differences. Moreover, it remains unclear whether the concessions satisfactorily address banks’ concerns. However, it is “a sign that they’re redoubling efforts to keep the market-structure bill moving,” the report added.

The Stablecoin Rewards Dispute

As reported by Bitcoinist, banks have heavily criticized the landmark stablecoin legislation, the GENIUS Act, affirming that it has loopholes that could pose risks to the financial system.

For context, the crypto framework prohibits interest payments on the holding or use of payment-purpose stablecoins but only addresses stablecoin issuers. As a result, banking associations across the US pressed the Senate Banking Committee to add language to the CLARITY Act that also bans digital asset exchanges, brokers, dealers, and related entities.

The Senate Banking Committee published its draft last month, which received heavy backlash from crypto industry leaders for introducing key restrictions for stablecoin issuers.

Under the proposed draft, issuers would be able to offer rewards for specific actions, such as account openings and cashback. Nonetheless, they would be prohibited from providing interest payments to passive token holders. Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong argued that “would kill rewards on stablecoins,” and allow banks to “ban their competition.”

This led to a delay of the Senate Banking Committee’s markup session, initially scheduled for mid-January, and an extended negotiation process between lawmakers and leaders from the two industries.

Earlier this week, the Trump administration oversaw a White House meeting with crypto and banking groups, including PayPal, Ripple, Coinbase, Multicoin, Circle, the American Bankers Association, and the Bank Policy Institute, to ease the regulatory debate.

The negotiation reportedly ended without an agreement on how to address the dispute but led to “constructive discussion on the risks and opportunities of stablecoin yield and rewards.”

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Senator Tim Scott recently affirmed that he is still hopeful the two sides can reach a balance. “We can protect consumers and community banks while still allowing innovation and competition to lower prices and expand access,” he stated. “Both sides are working toward a compromise that keeps innovation here in America.”

Bitcoin (BTC) trades at $69,702 on the one-week chart. Source: BTCUSDT on TradingView

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main purpose of the proposed concessions by crypto firms regarding the CLARITY Act?

AThe main purpose is to address the banking sector's concerns about stablecoins, particularly regarding interest payments, in order to advance the stalled crypto market structure bill and win over banks' support.

QWhat specific compromise did crypto firms propose to involve community banks in the stablecoin system?

ACrypto firms proposed giving community banks a larger role by allowing them to hold reserves or issue tokens through partnerships, and requiring stablecoin issuers to maintain a portion of their reserves at community banks.

QWhy have banks expressed concerns about stablecoin policies, according to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan?

ABanks are concerned that interest payments on stablecoins will distort market dynamics and affect credit creation, potentially posing significant challenges to the banking sector, especially small- and medium-sized businesses.

QWhat key restriction in the Senate Banking Committee's draft legislation has drawn criticism from crypto industry leaders like Coinbase's CEO?

AThe draft prohibits stablecoin issuers from providing interest payments to passive token holders, which critics argue would kill rewards on stablecoins and allow banks to ban their competition.

QWhat was the outcome of the recent White House meeting between crypto and banking groups regarding the stablecoin dispute?

AThe meeting ended without an agreement on how to address the dispute but led to a constructive discussion on the risks and opportunities of stablecoin yield and rewards.

Lecturas Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片