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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-06Última atualização em 2026-02-06

Resumo

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

Perguntas 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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism. The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers. Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach. The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.

marsbitHá 55m

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

marsbitHá 55m

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?

marsbitHá 1h

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

marsbitHá 1h

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.

marsbitHá 1h

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

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片