Binance Founder CZ: Stablecoins Can Still Provide Returns
Binance founder CZ retweeted comments from Superstate founder Robert Leshner regarding the failure to advance the CLARITY Act, calling it an "interesting summary." CZ added that if there is a positive aspect to this situation, it is that stablecoins can continue to provide returns to holders. The path forward for the industry will inevitably encounter setbacks, but technological progress will not stagnate as a result.
Robert Leshner previously commented in his original post that the setback of the CLARITY Act is a complete "lose-lose" situation, where the procedural voting battle between the two parties ultimately overshadowed the common-sense judgment that should have guided the legislative process, leading to the collapse of a regulatory framework that had been refined for over a year and a half at the last moment. Leshner is the founder of the DeFi lending protocol Compound Finance and later founded Superstate, which focuses on tokenizing real assets such as U.S. Treasury bonds. His statements carry weight in the industry.
This commentary on the bill's setback is the latest in a chain of reactions following the Senate's procedural vote, which failed to reach the 60-vote threshold with a tie of 50 votes to 50. Prior voices include Cynthia Lummis, Faryar Shirzad, Brian Armstrong, Tyler Winklevoss, Elizabeth Warren, Stani Kulechov, Chris Dixon, and Mike Novogratz, who have commented from various angles on the reasons and consequences of the bill's failure.
CZ's key point in this statement is the specific detail that "stablecoins can still provide returns": since the CLARITY Act did not pass, the federal-level restrictions on whether stablecoins can pay interest or returns to holders, as outlined in the previous draft, have not yet come into effect. This means that the current market situation—where stablecoin issuers and related lending protocols can still design their own return mechanisms—will not change in the short term due to this legislation.
From a funding and market mechanism perspective, the failure of the bill essentially maintains the previous regulatory gray area rather than tightening the rules. This is a substantial benefit for yield-generating stablecoin issuers and DeFi lending protocols that have already established mature products and user bases in this space—funds are not forced to withdraw or adjust structures due to new regulations, and continue to remain in stablecoins and lending products that can provide returns. The party under pressure is the traditional banks and asset management institutions that were originally hoping to gain compliance certainty through clear legislation to enter on a larger scale; they rely more on clear rules to participate at scale, and the regulatory vacuum has extended their wait-and-see time window.
ABAB AI Insight
CZ's public statements have always been accompanied by complex backgrounds: In November 2023, CZ reached a plea agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice over anti-money laundering compliance issues, stepped down as CEO of Binance, and paid a hefty fine, serving several months in prison before being released in 2024; since then, he has continued to maintain industry influence through social media, frequently commenting on U.S. regulatory developments. Robert Leshner's historical actions are also specific: he founded Compound Finance, one of the pioneers of DeFi lending protocols, and later turned to establish Superstate, focusing on tokenizing traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds. The business logic of such products heavily relies on whether the regulatory environment allows stablecoins and tokenized assets to continue providing returns.
From a funding pathway perspective, both CZ and Leshner's statements essentially endorse the yield-generating stablecoin and tokenized real asset sectors: the failure of the bill maintains the current regulatory vacuum, allowing the business model of products like Superstate's tokenized U.S. Treasury bonds to continue operating in the existing gray area without needing to adjust return structures or compliance costs due to new regulations, which provides confidence support for related funds to remain in this sector.
This situation can be compared to the early stage of internet finance when regulatory lag allowed many online payment and lending innovation companies to seize the market during the window period when regulations had not kept pace with technological evolution. When rules tightened later, early movers often established an unshakeable user base and product moat. The yield-generating stablecoin and tokenized asset industry is currently in this "regulatory vacuum dividend period," not yet entering a phase where strong regulation reshapes business models.
From a structural nature perspective, this event corresponds to regulatory changes: the failure of the bill essentially maintains the "status quo" rather than "tightening rules" at the regulatory level. The causal mechanism is that once the provisions in the previous draft restricting stablecoins from paying returns do not come into effect, the default rules in the industry remain a patchwork of state regulations and existing gray areas, allowing early adopters who have established yield-generating products and user habits to continue expanding market share during this window period until future legislation truly changes the game rules. This is the underlying logic behind CZ's statement that "technological progress will continue."
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
- The regulatory vacuum period is the dividend period for early movers.
- Resistance can hold back consensus, but not technology.
- Games can win for a time, but common sense will ultimately prevail.