Crypto world faces growing pressure to relent on stablecoin rewards to win bigger prize

If you break down what’s standing in the way of advancing the crypto sector’s top goal in Washington — Clarity Act legislation — the part of the debate that the industry can control is narrow: stablecoin rewards.

That’s not the only issue that could potentially derail the bill to finally establish a tailored legal footing for crypto markets in the U.S., but it’s the one in which industry insiders have a strong say. Companies such as Coinbase have been vigorously defending that business turf, wanting to keep giving customers incentives for engaging with stablecoins on their platforms.

But Wall Street banking lobbyists rolled in and made an argument that getting yield on stablecoin accounts is a lot like getting interest on savings accounts, and if the former kills the latter, the death of the deposit business means the strangulation of bank lending. That argument stuck with enough lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that it stopped the Senate’s Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in its tracks.

Heels have been digging in, and the resulting impasse will get harder to break as the weeks fly by, until the Senate’s own calendar quirks could effectively shove the whole mess toward 2027.

Upper hand?

Until now, the crypto side has argued that it has the upper hand, because the crypto bill that already passed into law — the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act — seemed to allow third-party platforms such as Coinbase to offer rewards tied to other issuers’ tokens, such as Circle’s. However, a newly proposed rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that’s implementing GENIUS concluded that such relationships may violate the intent of the law, leaving the crypto world’s confidence a little shaken.

The last time the crypto and banking negotiators sat down with White House officials, President Donald Trump’s crypto advisers seemed to favor a compromise that would allow some rewards — not for merely holding stablecoins, but for actually using them for transactions and to support crypto infrastructure. Crypto insiders felt confident in their leverage, with GENIUS behind them and the White House favoring certain rewards.

But bank representatives haven’t necessarily seen the White House in the driver’s seat, because the White House doesn’t get a vote in advancing the Senate’s bill. The bankers haven’t yet raised their hands to move beyond their earlier position that virtually all categories of rewards need to be banned, despite the White House having set the end of February as an informal (unmet) deadline for compromise.

So where does that leave things?

The banks can hold out, and if they continue to cast stablecoin rewards as an existential threat to the traditional financial system and Main Street lending, it could keep their allied lawmakers on their side at the fatal expense of the Clarity Act. What they risk is that the GENIUS Act remains the law of the land on this point. The OCC’s latest work may help bolster their confidence that strict rewards limits will be put in place, but that final agency rule would have to land on a very restrictive interpretation.

The crypto industry can also hold out, and if it can successfully lobby against the OCC’s proposed rule, it may still manage to preserve stablecoin reward programs it believes should be allowed under the wording of the GENIUS Act. But that may come at the cost of the Clarity Act, which is the single most important policy aim since the birth of crypto.

Regulations either way

Would an absence of Clarity mean that the industry continues without U.S. regulations? Probably not, because the U.S. markets regulators — the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — are working on rules that will define their crypto jurisdictions. The drawback, though, is that it would be done without the foundation of new law, so the rules would be reasonably easy to peel back or revise under future leadership changes at those agencies.

As if that wasn’t enough for the crypto negotiators to consider, there’s this: If they were to capitulate somehow on stablecoin yield, and the bill advanced along party lines through the Senate Banking Committee (as it already was through the Senate Agriculture Committee), the crypto-industry sacrifice brings no guarantee the effort gets passed by the rest of the Senate.

The problem is that Democratic senators have asked for some other significant points in this bill, and so far, those requests have gone unanswered. They want more vigorous defenses against illicit finance in crypto, especially focused on the decentralized finance (DeFi) space, and some of the Democrats’ past ideas were bashed by the industry as DeFi death threats. They also want politically dicey limits on the personal crypto business ties of senior government officials — most significantly, President Trump. And they demand that vacant Democratic seats get filled in the CFTC and SEC.

None of the points represent impassable roadblocks, but in the months of talks, they haven’t been cleared, yet. Some of the requests — such as commission nominations — would depend on willingness from the White House.

In the meantime, the clock is ticking away on 2026 Senate floor time for a major legislative accomplishment. Because this is a midterm election year, the lawmakers will scarcely be working in the Senate after the end of July. And apart from the scheduling practicalities, the nearness of hot-blooded campaigning erodes the chances of the parties getting together on a bill.

At this stage, insiders on the crypto side of the talks have expressed frustration over the unwavering position of the bankers, even as the digital assets businesses have seemed prepared to abandon stablecoin rewards on accounts in which the tokens are simply held (like a bank account). Still, people like Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong (“We’re going to reach a win-win-win outcome”) and Ripple CEO Brian Garlinghouse (predicting 80% odds of passage) have sought to maintain industry confidence.

That optimism seems to have kept Polymarket bettors favoring Clarity Act passage this year above a coin flip, currently at 70%.

In the coming weeks, the crypto industry may be forced to decide whether some kind of further sacrifice on stablecoin rewards is worth eliminating one of the major impediments to advancing a bill. And the banks may have to decide whether they can contend with the GENIUS Act’s treatment of stablecoins as it stands. So far, neither are moving, and tension is building.