The stablecoin proposal is back at the center of the dispute 🚨

In the US, the new compromise on stablecoin regulation has still not removed the main tension between the crypto industry and banks. This concerns the text within the CLARITY Act, which Senator Thom Tillis describes as an attempt to find a bipartisan balance, but the banks themselves still believe that the document does not sufficiently protect the deposit base of the banking system.

What exactly happened

The negotiations revolve around the rules for stablecoin rewards. The new compromise text prohibits rewards if they are economically or functionally equivalent to interest on a bank deposit. At the same time, the document leaves room for certain permitted formats of rewards, which still have to be detailed by regulators.

Why banks are still dissatisfied

For banks, the main risk has not changed: they fear that stablecoin products with rewards may still pull deposits out of the traditional system and weaken the base for lending. It was precisely because of these concerns that the bill had stalled earlier, and even now the compromise has not fully closed the issue of deposit protection for banks.

• the compromise prohibits bank-like yield on stablecoins
• banks still fear an outflow of deposits
• crypto companies insist that a total ban on rewards will hit their growth model

What this means for the market

For the market, this is a telling moment: stablecoin regulation has long ceased to be only about crypto. In reality, it is about how far a new financial infrastructure can be allowed to go without affecting the interests of the banking system. If the compromise turns out too soft, banks will continue pushing for tougher restrictions. If it turns out too strict – the market will receive a signal that innovation is once again being pushed into the background.

Conclusion

The story around the stablecoin proposal shows that even a bipartisan compromise does not guarantee calm. The text already looks like a step toward an agreed rule, but for banks it still does not provide sufficient safeguards, and for the crypto market it remains critically important how narrowly or broadly regulators will later interpret the permitted rewards. That is exactly why the stablecoin discussion in the US remains a point of tension between innovation and financial caution.