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

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-02-06Обновлено 2026-02-06

Введение

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

Связанные с этим вопросы

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.

Похожее

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

Tech giants like Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft are undergoing a radical financial transformation due to AI. Their traditional "light-asset, high-free-cash-flow" model is being dismantled by staggering capital expenditures on AI infrastructure—data centers, GPUs, and power. Combined 2026 guidance exceeds $700 billion, a 4.5x increase from 2022, causing free cash flow to plummet (e.g., Amazon's fell 95%). To fund this, they are borrowing unprecedented sums through long-dated, multi-currency bonds (e.g., Alphabet's 100-year bond). The world's most conservative capital—pensions, insurers—is now funding Silicon Valley's most speculative bet. This shift makes these companies resemble heavy-asset industrials (railroads, utilities) rather than software firms, threatening their premium valuations. Historically, such infrastructure booms (railroads, fiber optics) followed a pattern: genuine technology, overbuilding fueled by competitive frenzy, aggressive debt financing, and a crash triggered by financial conditions—not technology failure. The infrastructure remained, but many original builders and financiers did not survive. The core gamble is a "time arbitrage": using cheap debt today to build scale and lock in customers before AI capabilities commoditize. They are betting that AI revenue will materialize before debt comes due. Their positions vary: Amazon is under immediate cash pressure; Meta's path to monetization is unclear; Alphabet has a robust core business buffer; Microsoft has the shortest path from infrastructure to revenue. The contract is set: the most risk-averse global capital has lent its time to Silicon Valley, awaiting a future that is promised but uncertain.

marsbit31 мин. назад

Borrowing Money from a Hundred Years Later, Building Incomprehensible AI

marsbit31 мин. назад

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

"The article explores the 'VVV' concept as the new AI-focused narrative within the Base ecosystem, centered around the token $VVV of the privacy-focused, uncensored generative AI platform Venice, led by crypto veteran Erik Voorhees. Venice has seen significant growth in 2026, with its API users surging, partly attributed to exposure from OpenClaw. The platform now boasts over 2 million total users and 55,000 paid subscribers. Correspondingly, the $VVV token price has risen over 9x this year. Key to its performance are tokenomics designed for value accrual: reduced annual emissions, subscription revenue used for buyback-and-burn, and a unique staking mechanism. Staking $VVV yields $sVVV, which can be used to mint $DIEM tokens. Each staked $DIEM provides a daily $1 credit for using Venice's API services, creating tangible utility. The article also highlights other tokens associated with the 'VVV' narrative. $POD, the token of distributed AI network Dolphin (which co-developed Venice's default AI model), saw a massive price surge. $cyb3rwr3n, a project for a Venice credit auction market, gained attention due to perceived connections to Venice's team despite official denials. Finally, $SR of robotics platform STRIKEROBOT.AI rose after announcing a partnership with Venice for robot vision-language model development. Overall, the 'VVV' ecosystem combines AI platform growth, deflationary tokenomics, and innovative utility mechanisms, driving significant investor interest and price action in related tokens."

marsbit39 мин. назад

The 'VVV' Concept Soars 9x in Half a Year, The New AI Narrative on Base Chain

marsbit39 мин. назад

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbit1 ч. назад

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片