White House Crypto Adviser To Banks: Don’t Panic Over Stablecoin Returns

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-02-14Actualizado a 2026-02-14

Resumen

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt advises banks not to panic over stablecoin yield programs, arguing they are not an existential threat. He suggests banks and crypto firms can coexist by offering similar products, and a compromise on rewards is possible. The core dispute over allowing platforms to pay rewards is holding up the CLARITY Act, a key crypto bill defining regulatory roles for the SEC and CFTC. Lawmakers face a narrowing window to reach a deal before the midterm elections potentially fracture the bipartisan coalition. The White House is pushing for a solution to provide legal certainty and unlock institutional capital currently waiting for clearer rules.

Patrick Witt, a senior White House crypto adviser, told reporters that banks should not see stablecoin yield programs as an existential threat.

He argued that banks and crypto firms can both offer similar products to customers and that the controversy over rewards is fixable through compromise.

Reports note he made the comments in a sit-down with Yahoo Finance as lawmakers and industry groups continue talks.

Banks Can Offer Similar Products

Big lenders have options, and some are already moving to use them. According to meetings and follow-ups, several banks are seeking OCC charters and exploring ways to provide stablecoin-style accounts to customers, which undercuts the idea that yield programs automatically steal deposits from traditional banks.

That dynamic helped bring both sides into a recent White House convening, but the talks did not settle the core dispute over whether platforms should be allowed to pay rewards to holders.

Stablecoin Yields Hold Up Legislation

At the center of the fight is the CLARITY Act, a bill meant to draw lines between the SEC and the CFTC while creating a basic asset taxonomy for cryptocurrencies.

Reports say the debate over rewards and interest has become a major hold-up, with senators and industry groups trading proposals and pushbacks as they try to hash out workable language. SEC and CFTC are both part of the tug-of-war over who gets to police different tokens and services.

BTCUSD now trading at $69,818. Chart: TradingView

A Race Against The Calendar

Pressure to finish a deal is rising because lawmakers face an election calendar that could change the political math. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that if Democrats win back the House the bipartisan coalition working on the bill could fracture, making rapid progress less likely.

That warning is echoed around Capitol Hill by lobbyists and some industry leaders, who say the current window to pass a compromise is dwindling.

A Narrow Window To Act

The White House has signaled it wants a solution before the fall slog of midterm politics takes hold. White House advisers have urged both sides to find middle ground, saying a functioning framework would unlock large pools of institutional capital now sitting on the sidelines.

Reports have disclosed that these investors are reluctant to deploy funds until the rules are clearer, which is one reason the administration is pressing for movement.

The debate is not only technical; it is political and strategic. Lawmakers will need to balance banks’ worries about deposits with crypto firms’ demand to preserve business models that rely on customer rewards.

For consumers, the immediate effect will depend on how any compromise treats protections, transparency and how rewards are funded.

For markets, the bigger prize is legal certainty — and that prize is getting harder to win as the calendar tightens.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Criptos en tendencia

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat did White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt say about banks' view on stablecoin yield programs?

APatrick Witt told reporters that banks should not see stablecoin yield programs as an existential threat.

QWhat are some banks doing in response to stablecoin competition, according to the article?

ASeveral banks are seeking OCC charters and exploring ways to provide stablecoin-style accounts to customers.

QWhat legislation is at the center of the stablecoin regulatory debate?

AThe CLARITY Act, a bill meant to draw lines between the SEC and the CFTC while creating a basic asset taxonomy for cryptocurrencies.

QWhy is there pressure to finish a regulatory deal quickly, according to the article?

ALawmakers face an election calendar that could change the political math, and the current window to pass a compromise is dwindling.

QWhat is the bigger prize for markets in this regulatory debate, as stated in the article?

AThe bigger prize for markets is legal certainty regarding cryptocurrency regulations.

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 50 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 50 min(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 1 hora(s)

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHace 1 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

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar HOUSE

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Housecoin (HOUSE) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Housecoin (HOUSE) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Housecoin (HOUSE)Después de comprar tu Housecoin (HOUSE), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Housecoin (HOUSE)Tradear fácilmente con Housecoin (HOUSE) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

254 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2025.04.27Actualizado en 2026.06.02

Cómo comprar HOUSE

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de HOUSE (HOUSE).

活动图片