White House meeting could unfreeze the crypto CLARITY Act this week, but crypto rewards likely to be the price
White House stablecoin meeting could unfreeze the CLARITY Act, but your USDC rewards could be the price
The newly confirmed Feb. 10 White House meeting on stablecoin coverage is being framed by some market observers as a step towards breaking the logjam round the CLARITY Act, a broad crypto market-structure invoice that has already run into procedural hurdles in the Senate.
In a submit on X, Milk Road mentioned the White House convening could assist transfer H.R. 3633 ahead after disputes over whether or not stablecoin holders ought to obtain interest-like returns.
The Senate Banking Committee’s deliberate Jan. 15 govt session to think about H.R. 3633 was publicly listed as “POSTPONED,” leaving the invoice and not using a present markup date on the committee calendar.
The committee had beforehand introduced it might maintain a markup that day on complete digital asset market construction laws. The announcement created an specific before-and-after second for the business’s near-term legislative timeline.
As that markup slipped, a White House-led stakeholder meeting on Feb. 2 ended with out settlement on stablecoin yield or rewards, with members planning to proceed talks.
Expectations are actually set for one more incremental spherical fairly than a single definitive negotiation. For extra context on how the dispute is being framed in crypto media, see CryptoSlate’s protection of the White House deposit-flight/yield standoff.
Stablecoin “yield” and the bank-deposit combat
The yield dispute is tied to product economics which can be already seen in shopper affords. Coinbase advertises “3.50% rewards on USDC” as a part of Coinbase One, whereas disclosing that the rewards fee is topic to change and may fluctuate by area.
Those caveats make “yield” much less a protocol-level function than a distribution choice and a compliance selection. The coverage argument activates whether or not payouts are handled as a rebate or loyalty profit, a bank-like curiosity substitute, or a yield product that attracts securities-style scrutiny.
The Wall Street Journal, describing the bank-crypto conflict over these merchandise, contrasted stablecoin rewards round 3.5% with financial institution deposit charges round 0.1%. It additionally reported that the Treasury had estimated a possible $6.6 trillion drawdown in deposits below sure assumptions, a determine finest handled as a situation output fairly than an noticed stream.
Bloomberg Law’s reporting described the subject as unresolved even after the White House convened stakeholders. Related: CryptoSlate’s prior protection of USDC rewards changes under MiCA-aligned rules.
| Data level | What’s on the document | Why it issues for the invoice combat |
|---|---|---|
| USDC rewards provide | Coinbase markets “3.50% rewards on USDC,” with rate-change and area caveats | Gives lawmakers and financial institution regulators a concrete reference for “interest-like” distribution |
| Bank vs. stablecoin fee framing | WSJ reported ~3.5% stablecoin rewards vs. ~0.1% financial institution deposit charges | Frames stablecoin balances as competitors for deposits and financial institution funding prices |
| Deposit draw situation | WSJ reported a Treasury estimate of $6.6T in potential deposit drawdown | Pushes the dispute from shopper advertising and marketing into systemic-scale coverage debate |
What the CLARITY Act textual content does on custody and DeFi
The legislative automobile at the heart of the debate is H.R. 3633, which passed the House and was despatched to the Senate, the place it was obtained and referred to the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 18, 2025.
The invoice textual content includes an specific “Protection of Self-Custody” clause. It states customers retain the proper to preserve {hardware} or software program wallets and to have interaction in direct peer-to-peer transactions, language that turns into a measuring stick for whether or not a ultimate compromise protects retail custody decisions whereas regulating intermediaries.
The House textual content additionally consists of headings that carve out “DECENTRALIZED FINANCE ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS ACT” in modification sections touching each the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. That makes DeFi scope a drafting subject fairly than an afterthought in the House strategy.
For readers monitoring broader DeFi coverage debates, see CryptoSlate’s evaluation on DeFi adoption and 2026 regulatory pressure.
The ahead path now hinges on how negotiators classify stablecoin rewards and the way that classification carries by committee textual content. One base-case consequence in line with public reporting is continuation of talks that yields a partial compromise.
Under that path, packages branded as “rewards” could survive if tied to exercise or membership constructs, whereas “passive” balance-based payouts are constrained by statutory definitions or implementing guidelines. That would shift product design towards funds rails, card packages, and utilization incentives fairly than a easy APY for holding.
A extra optimistic situation will depend on a reputable yield compromise lowering sufficient opposition for Senate Banking to re-calendar its markup. As of Feb. 9, no new date was posted to exchange the postponed Jan. 15 session, leaving timing depending on future committee motion fairly than a hard and fast schedule.
A draw back path is that stablecoin yield stays a veto level, extending the hole between House-passed textual content and a Senate course of that has already proven slippage. For associated debate on yield-bearing stablecoins in Congress, see CryptoSlate’s earlier protection of the STABLE Act markup controversy.
Global constraints, implementation danger, and what to watch subsequent
For DeFi and retail customers, the sensible take a look at will be whether or not statutory carve-outs and self-custody protections stay intact after Senate drafting and any House-Senate reconciliation. The House language on self-custody and peer-to-peer transfers is specific in the present textual content.
That supplies a foundation for evaluating later variations which may slender pockets rights by definitions of intermediated companies or compliance triggers. The DeFi carve-out headings present one other anchor, but their actual impact can hinge on how lawmakers and businesses outline “DeFi actions,” “management,” and intermediation.
That implementation danger issues extra if stablecoin rewards are regulated broadly. In that case, on-ramps, custodians, and interfaces turn into choke factors for the way yield-like worth reaches customers, even when the yield itself comes from exterior the stablecoin issuer’s stability sheet.
The U.S. negotiation additionally sits towards a worldwide baseline the place at the least one main jurisdiction has already set constraints on “curiosity” for sure crypto-asset tokens. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation provides a reference level for limiting interest-like advantages in elements of the stablecoin class.
U.S. drafters face a aggressive tradeoff between aligning with a restrictive mannequin and allowing a rewards channel that capabilities as money administration for crypto-native and fintech distribution. For extra MiCA context, see CryptoSlate’s reporting on MiCA licensing across the EU.
For now, the subsequent concrete alerts to watch are whether or not the reported Feb. 10 meeting happens and produces draft language that resolves the Feb. 2 impasse.
Another key marker is whether or not Senate Banking posts a brand new date to exchange the postponed Jan. 15 markup that was meant to think about H.R. 3633.
The submit White House meeting could unfreeze the crypto CLARITY Act this week, but crypto rewards likely to be the price appeared first on CryptoSlate.
