A second White House meeting between major U.S. banks and leading crypto firms concluded on February 10 without a resolution regarding stablecoin yield, leaving a contentious regulatory issue unresolved.
The session, led by Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Crypto Council, focused on whether stablecoin issuers should be permitted to offer yield or rewards to their holders.
While participants characterized the dialogue as more detailed than prior discussions, no compromise was achieved. The outcome further stalls the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, widely referred to as the CLARITY Act, which remains stuck in the Senate Banking Committee.
Stablecoin Yield at the Center of the Dispute
Central to this disagreement is whether stablecoin rewards should be treated similarly to bank interest and thus subject to the same regulatory restrictions. Representatives from major banking institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, PNC, and U.S. Bank, warned that yield-bearing stablecoins could siphon large-scale deposits from traditional banks.
In a bid to safeguard their interests, banks presented a set of “prohibition principles” advocating for a ban on “any form of financial or non-financial consideration” provided to stablecoin holders. Their argument rests on the belief that allowing such incentives could undermine lending structures and disrupt the existing deposit landscape.
In contrast, crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, a16z, Paxos, and the Blockchain Association challenged these assertions, defending the necessity of stablecoin rewards as integral to on-chain finance and essential for equitable competition with traditional financial offerings. They cautioned that overly stringent regulations could stifle innovation or push activity beyond U.S. borders.
CLARITY Act Remains in Limbo
The ongoing debate over stablecoin yield stands as a key obstacle for the CLARITY Act, which is designed to delineate regulatory oversight for digital assets and clarify the respective roles of the SEC and CFTC. Although the bill passed the House in 2025, it has yet to gain traction in the Senate amidst lingering concerns regarding stablecoin regulations.
Despite the adamant position maintained by banks, there were signs of a shift in discussions. For the first time, banking representatives hinted at a limited openness to explore potential exemptions for transaction-based rewards. However, disagreements over what constitutes “permissible activities” continued to obstruct progress.
The White House has pressed both parties to come to an agreement by March 1 in order to maintain legislative momentum. While further discussions are on the horizon, it remains uncertain whether another comprehensive meeting will take place before the deadline.
Until an agreement is reached, the regulation of stablecoins and broader reforms of the U.S. crypto market structure remain in a state of stagnation.
