hi hello, yes it is very much true that the battle over stablecoin yield is reaching a turning point.
MoonGirl
#WhiteHouseTalksStablecoinYields 🇺🇸💵 The Battle Over Stablecoin Yield Is Reaching a Turning Point On Feb 19, 2026, the White House hosted its third closed-door meeting on stablecoin yields — bringing together: • Coinbase • Ripple • Major bank trade groups (ABA, ICBA) • Administration negotiators Sources describe the session as “productive” — but no final deal yet. The core issue remains explosive: 👉 Should Stablecoins Pay Yield? 💰 What’s at Stake? The stablecoin market now exceeds $300B, largely backed by U.S. Treasuries. If issuers like Circle (USDC) or Tether (USDT) offer 3–5% passive yield on idle balances, it changes everything. That moves stablecoins closer to bank deposits — without being regulated like banks. 🏦 Banks’ Position: “Protect the $18 Trillion Deposit System” Banks fear: • Deposit migration into higher-yielding stablecoins • Reduced lending capacity • Shadow banking expansion Their demand? ❌ Full prohibition on issuer-paid yield ❌ No loopholes They argue anything less risks destabilizing traditional credit markets. 🪙 Crypto’s Counterargument: Innovation & U.S. Leadership Crypto leaders respond: • Stablecoins are payment rails, not deposits • Yield increases adoption & liquidity • Bans push innovation offshore They warn that strict restrictions could weaken U.S. digital dollar dominance. 🏛️ Emerging Compromise: Activity-Based Rewards The White House appears to be steering toward a middle ground: ✅ Allow rewards tied to transactions, trading, DeFi activity ❌ Ban passive yield on idle balances Draft language reportedly focuses on rewards for “activities or transactions (not balances).” This could satisfy financial stability concerns while preserving user incentives. ⚖️ Legislative Pressure The debate is tied to two major bills: • GENIUS Act – restricts direct interest but leaves reward gray areas • CLARITY Act – defines SEC/CFTC roles; currently stalled Without compromise, broader crypto legislation could remain gridlocked. 📊 What This Means for Investors If Full Ban Wins: • No passive 4–5% yield on idle USDC • Exchanges end easy reward programs • Capital shifts into DeFi (higher risk) If Limited Rewards Pass: • Active users still earn • Platforms pivot toward engagement-based perks • Stablecoins remain growth-friendly If Pro-Yield Prevails: • Massive institutional inflows • Treasury-backed digital dollar expansion • Explosive adoption 🔥 Bottom Line (Feb 23, 2026) Three meetings complete. Progress made. Compromise increasingly likely. March 1 is shaping up as a key pressure point. This decision won’t just affect stablecoins — it could define U.S. crypto regulation for the next decade. Shadow banking risk… or fintech evolution? History is being negotiated behind closed doors. #Stablecoins #CryptoPolicy #DigitalDollar #USRegulation
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
hi hello, yes it is very much true that the battle over stablecoin yield is reaching a turning point.
The Battle Over Stablecoin Yield Is Reaching a Turning Point
On Feb 19, 2026, the White House hosted its third closed-door meeting on stablecoin yields — bringing together:
• Coinbase
• Ripple
• Major bank trade groups (ABA, ICBA)
• Administration negotiators
Sources describe the session as “productive” — but no final deal yet.
The core issue remains explosive:
👉 Should Stablecoins Pay Yield?
💰 What’s at Stake?
The stablecoin market now exceeds $300B, largely backed by U.S. Treasuries.
If issuers like Circle (USDC) or Tether (USDT) offer 3–5% passive yield on idle balances, it changes everything.
That moves stablecoins closer to bank deposits — without being regulated like banks.
🏦 Banks’ Position: “Protect the $18 Trillion Deposit System”
Banks fear:
• Deposit migration into higher-yielding stablecoins
• Reduced lending capacity
• Shadow banking expansion
Their demand?
❌ Full prohibition on issuer-paid yield
❌ No loopholes
They argue anything less risks destabilizing traditional credit markets.
🪙 Crypto’s Counterargument: Innovation & U.S. Leadership
Crypto leaders respond:
• Stablecoins are payment rails, not deposits
• Yield increases adoption & liquidity
• Bans push innovation offshore
They warn that strict restrictions could weaken U.S. digital dollar dominance.
🏛️ Emerging Compromise: Activity-Based Rewards
The White House appears to be steering toward a middle ground:
✅ Allow rewards tied to transactions, trading, DeFi activity
❌ Ban passive yield on idle balances
Draft language reportedly focuses on rewards for “activities or transactions (not balances).”
This could satisfy financial stability concerns while preserving user incentives.
⚖️ Legislative Pressure
The debate is tied to two major bills:
• GENIUS Act – restricts direct interest but leaves reward gray areas
• CLARITY Act – defines SEC/CFTC roles; currently stalled
Without compromise, broader crypto legislation could remain gridlocked.
📊 What This Means for Investors
If Full Ban Wins:
• No passive 4–5% yield on idle USDC
• Exchanges end easy reward programs
• Capital shifts into DeFi (higher risk)
If Limited Rewards Pass:
• Active users still earn
• Platforms pivot toward engagement-based perks
• Stablecoins remain growth-friendly
If Pro-Yield Prevails:
• Massive institutional inflows
• Treasury-backed digital dollar expansion
• Explosive adoption
🔥 Bottom Line (Feb 23, 2026)
Three meetings complete.
Progress made.
Compromise increasingly likely.
March 1 is shaping up as a key pressure point.
This decision won’t just affect stablecoins —
it could define U.S. crypto regulation for the next decade.
Shadow banking risk…
or fintech evolution?
History is being negotiated behind closed doors.
#Stablecoins #CryptoPolicy #DigitalDollar #USRegulation