No Agreement Reached In White House Meeting Between Banks And The Crypto Industry

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-02-12Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-12

A second White House meeting between major U.S. banks and leading crypto firms ended without a deal on stablecoin yield, leaving one of the most contentious issues in U.S. digital asset regulation unresolved.

The February 10 session, led by Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Crypto Council, focused on whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield or rewards to holders.

While participants described the talks as more detailed than previous discussions, no compromise was reached. The outcome keeps the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, known as the CLARITY Act, stalled in the Senate Banking Committee.

BTC's price trends to the downside on the daily chart. Source: BTCUSD on Tradingview

Stablecoin Yield at the Center of the Dispute

At the heart of the disagreement is whether stablecoin rewards resemble bank interest and, if so, should face similar restrictions.

Banking representatives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, PNC, and U.S. Bank argued that yield-bearing stablecoins could trigger large-scale deposit outflows from traditional banks.

Banks presented a written set of “prohibition principles” calling for a ban on “any form of financial or non-financial consideration” offered to stablecoin holders. They contend that allowing such rewards could undermine lending capacity and disrupt the traditional deposit model.

Crypto firms, including Coinbase, Ripple, a16z, Paxos, and the Blockchain Association, pushed back. They argue that stablecoin rewards are a core feature of on-chain finance and necessary for fair competition with traditional financial products.

Industry representatives also said overly restrictive rules could slow innovation or drive activity outside the United States.

CLARITY Act Remains in Limbo

The debate over stablecoin yield has become a key obstacle for the CLARITY Act, which aims to define regulatory oversight for digital assets and clarify the roles of the SEC and the CFTC. The bill passed the House in 2025 but has not advanced in the Senate due to unresolved concerns around stablecoin regulation.

Although banks maintained a firm stance, participants noted a shift in tone. For the first time, banking representatives signaled limited openness to discussing potential exemptions for transaction-based rewards. However, disagreements over what qualifies as “permissible activities” remain unresolved.

The White House has urged both sides to reach an agreement by March 1 to preserve legislative momentum. Further discussions are expected in the coming days, though it is unclear whether another full-scale meeting will be held before the deadline.

Until a compromise is reached, stablecoin regulation and broader reform of the U.S. crypto market structure remain in a holding pattern.

Cover image in ChatGPT, BTCUSD chart on Tradingview

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the main topic of disagreement in the White House meeting between banks and crypto firms?

AThe main topic was whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield or rewards to holders.

QWhich major financial institutions argued against yield-bearing stablecoins?

ARepresentatives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, PNC, and U.S. Bank argued against them.

QWhat is the name of the proposed legislation that is currently stalled due to this disagreement?

AThe proposed legislation is called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act.

QWhat was the primary concern expressed by the banking representatives regarding stablecoin rewards?

AThey argued that yield-bearing stablecoins could trigger large-scale deposit outflows from traditional banks and undermine their lending capacity.

QWhat was the deadline given by the White House for the two sides to reach an agreement?

AThe White House urged both sides to reach an agreement by March 1 to preserve legislative momentum.

Letture associate

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit5 min fa

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit5 min fa

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

The commercialization of generative AI is facing a critical inflection point as a potential price war looms. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI is considering a significant cut to its token fees to compete with rival Anthropic, signaling a shift from a growth-at-all-costs model focused on token consumption. This move comes as both companies, reportedly losing billions on compute, prepare for IPOs, and as enterprise customers face "bill shock" from switching to usage-based token billing. Reports indicate poor ROI, with one analysis finding only 18 cents of every dollar spent on AI tokens generates user-facing value. The industry's initial phases—from flat-rate subscriptions to aggressive subsidies—have given way to a reckoning with real costs. Analysts debate the future: some predict a bifurcation between premium, high-cost models for complex tasks and cheaper alternatives for routine work, while others believe overall spending will still rise as agentic AI increases tokens per task. Notably, Chinese model DeepSeek's low-cost API is gaining traction with U.S. enterprises, adding competitive pressure. The core challenge is redefining value beyond token volume ("tokenmaxxing") toward measurable productivity ("valuemaxxing"), as the entire AI value chain, from cloud providers to chipmakers, feels the ripple effects of unsustainable pricing.

marsbit9 min fa

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

marsbit9 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare HOUSE

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di Housecoin (HOUSE) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente HousecoinHOUSE.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva Housecoin (HOUSE)Dopo aver acquistato Housecoin (HOUSE), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia Housecoin (HOUSE)Scambia facilmente Housecoin (HOUSE) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

285 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2025.04.27Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare HOUSE

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di HOUSE HOUSE sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片