Stablecoin Politics Threaten to Derail US Market Structure Reform

A brewing political fight over stablecoin yields threatens to derail long-awaited US crypto market structure reform.

Recent developments expose deep divisions among banks, crypto firms, and policymakers over who benefits most from the next phase of financial regulation.

Stablecoin Yield Showdown Stalls US Crypto Market Reform

At the center of the dispute is whether crypto platforms should be allowed to offer rewards or yield on stablecoins.

Galaxy CEO Mike Novogratz warns that opposition from the banking lobby could sink the broader legislative effort altogether, even as existing law already permits certain forms of stablecoin yield.

“The dynamics of yield in the stable coin bill are fascinating and might cost the bill. Politics over good policy. Banks don’t want the crypto platforms to be able to give rewards to users (GENIUS, which is law, allows that). If the bill is killed, status quo is what they seem to fear,” Novogratz wrote.

According to Novogratz, banks are more concerned with competition than with consumer protection. Allowing crypto platforms to pay rewards on stablecoins could accelerate deposit outflows from traditional banks, pressuring margins and challenging legacy business models.

“If this is what sidetracks the market structure bill, the big loser will be the US consumer,” he added.

That concern appears to be playing out in Washington. The Senate Banking Committee has delayed progress on the broader CLARITY Act amid intense lobbying from the banking sector.

More than 3,200 bankers have urged lawmakers to close what they describe as a “payment of interest loophole.” They argue that stablecoin rewards could weaken community banks and reduce lending capacity.

Critics say the bill, as currently drafted, tilts the playing field. While banks retain the ability to pay interest on deposits, crypto platforms face tighter restrictions, with rewards allowed only for active participation, such as staking, liquidity provision, or governance.

The result, opponents argue, is regulation that protects incumbents at the expense of competition and consumer choice.

White House–Crypto Rift Deepens as Compromise Collides with Retail Concerns

The standoff has also revealed friction between the White House and the crypto industry. Journalist Brendan Pedersen recently noted that the “white house is still mad at Coinbase,” highlighting unresolved tensions as talks continue behind the scenes.

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has pushed back on claims of a breakdown, insisting discussions remain constructive and focused on compromise.

Nevertheless, views remain split inside the administration. Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, has warned against letting legislative perfection become the enemy of progress.

“There will be a crypto market structure bill — it’s a question of when, not if,” Witt wrote.

He argued that passing a bill now, under a pro-crypto administration, is preferable to risking harsher rules later.

“You might not love every part of the CLARITY Act, but I can guarantee you’ll hate a future Dem version even more.”

Not everyone agrees. Crypto commentator Wendy O responded that while Witt’s logic may be politically sound, retail investors stand to lose.

Elsewhere, legal experts warn the stakes may be even higher than the current debate suggests. Consensys lawyer Bill Hughes cautioned that punitive crypto regulation does not require another financial crisis.

“There won’t need to be a future financial crisis to see punitive legislation,” he said, warning of “little scalpel cuts hidden in must-pass legislation.”

Beyond stablecoin yields, the CLARITY Act would establish clearer rules for major crypto assets, developer protections, and distinctions between DeFi and TradFi.

In the meantime, however, those reforms remain on hold, caught in a political showdown where banks, lawmakers, and crypto firms are all fighting to shape the future of US digital asset regulation.