Uniswap Founder Hayden Adams Hits Back at Yield Restrictions with CLARITY Case
Hayden Adams publicly mocked the CLARITY Act's restrictions on crypto yields by comparing "5% yield to 0.000005%".
The controversy centers on Section 404 of the bill: it prohibits paying interest to users solely for holding stablecoins but allows rewards related to actual usage.
The buyers are the DeFi and stablecoin camp hoping to retain on-chain yield products, while the selling pressure comes from the banking sector's defense against "deposit alternatives"; this is policy-driven, benefiting compliant yield infrastructure while pressuring products forced to relinquish passive yields.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Behind this debate is a historic boundary struggle between stablecoins and bank deposits; banks have always viewed "yield-bearing stablecoin balances" as shadow deposits, while the crypto industry packages it as user experience and capital efficiency.
If CLARITY is implemented, the yield capability will shift from "balance equals yield" to "active capital deployment yields returns", bringing traffic, market making, and on-chain lending services back to the forefront.
Historically, once financial products are restricted from passive interest, the market quickly turns to more complex but compliant structural designs; this is very similar to the competitive logic between money market funds, brokerage cash management, and high-yield savings accounts.
Structurally, this is not just a product dispute but a regulatory change: whoever can define the boundaries of "yield" and "deposits" can decide the next round of user capital flows.
ABAB News · Law of Cognition
Once yields are restricted, products must be reinvented.
Deposits are the banks' moat, and yields are the most expensive customer acquisition.
Regulation does not prohibit innovation but rewrites profit distribution.