White House Crypto Advisor Fires Back At Bank CEOs In Stablecoin Rewards Clash

bitcoinistОпубликовано 2026-05-11Обновлено 2026-05-11

Введение

As a key crypto market structure bill nears a markup, the White House's top crypto advisor has criticized bank CEOs for reigniting a debate over stablecoin rewards. This follows a letter from American Bankers Association CEO Rob Nichols urging bank executives to pressure lawmakers to revise the CLARITY Act, claiming its current language inadequately prevents crypto firms from offering "interest-like rewards" on payment stablecoins, which could risk bank deposits and financial stability. The bill prohibits interest-equivalent payments but allows rewards for specific activities like staking. Patrick Witt, a White House digital assets advisor, rebuked the banking CEOs for refusing to attend White House mediation meetings on this issue, which has delayed the bill for months. While Senate sources suggest the banking lobby's push is weak and the committee is focused on other bill aspects, the debate could resurface when the legislation reaches the full Senate.

As the highly anticipated markup of the crypto market structure bill approaches, the White House’s top crypto advisor has slammed the banking industry’s CEOs amid efforts to reopen the stablecoin rewards debate.

ABA CEO Urges Banks To Block Stablecoin Rewards

On Sunday, the American Bankers Association (ABA)’s CEO, Rob Nichols, sent a letter urging bank executives to push lawmakers to revisit the language on the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, ahead of its Thursday markup.

Nichols affirmed that he was “reaching out to make every bank leader in this country aware of an urgent advocacy fight that requires your immediate engagement,” adding that he wants Congress to establish digital asset rules and responsible guardrails for the crypto industry.

Nichols letter to bank executives. Source: Brendan Pedersen on X

However, he considers that the latest version of the bill “still does not adequately prevent crypto companies from offering interest-like rewards on payment stablecoins,” which would “unnecessarily incentivize the flight of bank deposits into payment stablecoins, putting both economic growth and financial stability at risk.”

“We believe the committee members may not be fully aware of the risks to the economy posed by the stablecoin loophole. Your immediate engagement can make a difference,” Nichols’ letter read.

For context, the latest version of the CLARITY Act prohibits any activity “economically or functionally equivalent to the payment of interest or yield on an interest-bearing bank deposit” on payment stablecoins.

Nonetheless, the text allows for payment of rewards tied to bona fide activities, including staking, transaction activity, or liquidity provision, aiming to promote a “buy and user” approach.

Last Friday, US banking trade groups, including ABA, sent a letter asking senators to amend the stablecoin yield compromise ahead of the markup, arguing that the language on the current version of the legislation still leaves room for rewards programs that could effectively replicate yield.

White House Crypto Advisor Slams CEOs For Skipping Yield Talks

Patrick Witt, executive director of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Digital Assets, fired back at Nichols and other banking industry CEOs for their recent push to revisit the Senate Banking Committee’s compromise on Stablecoin yield and rewards.

In an X post, Witt reacted to the recent letters, affirming that he had specifically requested that Nichols and other bank trade CEOs attend the White House’s meetings to mediate the stablecoin yield dispute, but that they refused.

As reported by Bitcoinist, the White House held multiple meetings to resolve the disagreement between the crypto and banking industries, which has delayed a vote on the legislation for four months.

Some reports at the time noted that no individual bank representatives attended the February meeting, but that the sector was represented through trade associations, including ABA, the Banking Policy Institute (BPI), and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

“I guess the White House was beneath them?” the crypto advisor wrote on Monday. “In their defense, I wouldn’t want to have to defend their position in public either.”

Meanwhile, Senate sources have told journalist Eleanor Terret that the banking trade group effort was “pretty milquetoast,” adding that Committee members have already shifted their focus to wrapping up other outstanding issues in the bill, such as ethics language, which may complicate the sector’s efforts to reopen the debate.

“Still, the issue could resurface once the legislation reaches the Senate floor, where the banking groups may try to win over senators not on the Banking Committee,” Terret pointed out.

The total crypto market capitalization is at $2.7 trillion in the one-week chart. Source: TOTAL on TradingView

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main concern raised by ABA CEO Rob Nichols regarding the latest version of the CLARITY Act?

ARob Nichols's main concern is that the latest version of the bill does not adequately prevent crypto companies from offering interest-like rewards on payment stablecoins. He argues this could incentivize the flight of bank deposits into stablecoins, putting economic growth and financial stability at risk.

QHow did Patrick Witt, the White House crypto advisor, respond to the banking industry CEOs' efforts to revisit the stablecoin yield compromise?

APatrick Witt criticized the banking industry CEOs, noting that he had specifically requested they attend White House meetings to mediate the stablecoin yield dispute, but they refused. He suggested they avoided defending their position in public.

QWhat does the current text of the CLARITY Act allow regarding rewards on payment stablecoins?

AThe current text of the CLARITY Act prohibits activities economically equivalent to paying interest on bank deposits for payment stablecoins. However, it allows for rewards tied to bona fide activities such as staking, transaction activity, or liquidity provision.

QAccording to the article, what has delayed a vote on the crypto market structure legislation?

AA vote on the legislation has been delayed for four months due to the disagreement between the crypto and banking industries over the issue of stablecoin yields and rewards.

QWhat is the perspective of Senate sources, as reported by journalist Eleanor Terret, on the banking trade groups' latest effort?

ASenate sources described the banking trade group's effort as 'pretty milquetoast.' They added that Committee members have shifted focus to other outstanding issues in the bill, such as ethics language, which may complicate efforts to reopen the stablecoin debate.

Похожее

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit9 мин. назад

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit9 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit16 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit16 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit29 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit29 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить HOUSE

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение Housecoin (HOUSE) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки Housecoin (HOUSE).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение Housecoin (HOUSE)После приобретения вами Housecoin (HOUSE) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля Housecoin (HOUSE)С легкостью торгуйте Housecoin (HOUSE) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

578 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2025.04.27Обновлено 2026.06.02

Как купить HOUSE

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на HOUSE (HOUSE) представлены ниже.

活动图片