As the largest compliant exchange in the U.S., Coinbase's revenue related to stablecoins (especially USDC distribution and rewards) has long accounted for a significant proportion of its subscription and service income. Armstrong's public withdrawal of support in January directly triggered the Senate Banking Committee to cancel the originally scheduled markup, leading to dissatisfaction among some companies and legislators in the industry, who felt that the largest player withdrawing at the last moment undermined consensus.

In terms of capital pathways, Coinbase is deeply tied to the stablecoin economy through its revenue-sharing mechanism with Circle; any restrictions on passive or deposit-like earnings would directly impact its customer acquisition and retention model. Although the subsequent compromise version retained active rewards, it introduced a broad statement of "economically or functionally equivalent to bank deposit interest," which effectively narrowed the operational space, indicating that banking lobbying gained the upper hand in the tug-of-war.

Similar cases can be seen around 2022, where several exchanges adjusted their positions at critical points in regulatory legislation due to their own business interests, resulting in an overall process blockage. Currently, the legislative window is being squeezed by geopolitical agendas, and the wavering stance of a single large player amplifies the collective action dilemma.

This event essentially reflects capital concentration: when the business model of a leading platform is highly tied to legislative details, its veto power effectively becomes a bottleneck for industry legislation, as the mechanism allows the "largest stakeholders" in regulatory lobbying to have disproportionate agenda influence.

ABAB News · Cognitive Law

Veto power of the leading player outweighs industry consensus
Business model determines legislative stance
Once the window is missed, the cost is borne by the entire industry