Clarity Act Faces Resistance on Stablecoin Yield Provisions in Latest Discussions
The Clarity Act, led by U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry, has encountered significant resistance regarding provisions related to stablecoin "yield" in its latest discussions. Some statements allowing yield distribution to holders have been postponed, while restrictions stating that stablecoin reserves "must not be used to generate yield and must not pay interest on idle balances" remain intact.
This adjustment reflects a cautious approach by regulators in delineating the boundaries between "deposit-like products" and "payment instruments." Previous reports from various English media and policy analyses indicated that U.S. regulators are concerned that yield-bearing stablecoins functionally resemble money market funds or bank deposits, potentially circumventing the existing banking regulatory framework and posing systemic risks and regulatory arbitrage issues.
In the market, institutions like Coinbase and Circle have discussed stablecoin yield distribution models multiple times, while discussions within the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have consistently emphasized that stablecoins should focus on "payment stability" as their core function. This ongoing debate over provisions indicates that yield rights design has become one of the most central and contentious topics within the stablecoin regulatory framework.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Stablecoin "yield distribution" is fundamentally not a product design issue but a boundary issue within the financial system. Allowing stablecoins to distribute yields to holders shifts their economic attributes from "payment instruments" to "deposit-like or fund-like" entities, which directly impacts the deposit base of banks and the funding sources of money market funds, altering the hierarchical structure of funds within the dollar system.
The core logic of U.S. regulation is to maintain existing divisions: banks are responsible for credit creation and are strictly regulated, money market funds operate under a securities framework, while stablecoins are confined to "payment and settlement tools." Prohibiting yield payments on idle balances is essentially preventing stablecoins from becoming "shadow bank deposits," thereby avoiding the formation of large deposit pools outside of regulation.
In a longer-term view, this dispute reflects the competition over the form of digital dollar. Stablecoins, bank deposits, and money market funds are essentially competing for the carrying form of "risk-free dollar assets." Whoever can carry this portion of assets will control low-cost funding sources and key pricing power within the financial system. The allocation of yield rights determines whether these funds ultimately remain within the banking system, on-chain systems, or in capital markets.
Thus, this is not an isolated legislative detail but a structural game within the dollar system: against the backdrop of technology allowing funds to escape the banking system, the system is redefining which innovations can occur and which must be confined within existing financial frameworks.