White House stablecoin meeting could unfreeze the CLARITY Act, but your USDC rewards may be the price
The newly confirmed Feb. 10 White House meeting on stablecoin policy is being framed by some market observers as a step toward breaking the logjam around the CLARITY Act, a broad crypto market-structure bill that has already run into procedural hurdles in the Senate.
In a post on X, Milk Road said the White House convening could help move H.R. 3633 forward after disputes over whether stablecoin holders should receive interest-like returns.
The Senate Banking Committee’s planned Jan. 15 executive session to consider H.R. 3633 was publicly listed as “POSTPONED,” leaving the bill without a current markup date on the committee calendar.
The committee had previously announced it would hold a markup that day on comprehensive digital asset market structure legislation. The announcement created an explicit before-and-after moment for the industry’s near-term legislative timeline.
As that markup slipped, a White House-led stakeholder meeting on Feb. 2 ended without agreement on stablecoin yield or rewards, with participants planning to continue talks.
Expectations are now set for another incremental round rather than a single definitive negotiation. For additional context on how the dispute is being framed in crypto media, see CryptoSlate’s coverage of the White House deposit-flight/yield standoff.
Stablecoin “yield” and the bank-deposit fight
The yield dispute is tied to product economics that are already visible in consumer offers. Coinbase advertises “3.50% rewards on USDC” as part of Coinbase One, while disclosing that the rewards rate is subject to change and can vary by region.
Those caveats make “yield” less a protocol-level feature than a distribution decision and a compliance choice. The policy argument turns on whether payouts are treated as a rebate or loyalty benefit, a bank-like interest substitute, or a yield product that draws securities-style scrutiny.
The Wall Street Journal, describing the bank-crypto clash over these products, contrasted stablecoin rewards around 3.5% with bank deposit rates around 0.1%. It also reported that the Treasury had estimated a potential $6.6 trillion drawdown in deposits under certain assumptions, a figure best treated as a scenario output rather than an observed flow.
Bloomberg Law’s reporting described the issue as unresolved even after the White House convened stakeholders. Related: CryptoSlate’s prior coverage of USDC rewards changes under MiCA-aligned rules.
| Data point | What’s on the record | Why it matters for the bill fight |
|---|---|---|
| USDC rewards offer | Coinbase markets “3.50% rewards on USDC,” with rate-change and region caveats | Gives lawmakers and bank regulators a concrete reference for “interest-like” distribution |
| Bank vs. stablecoin rate framing | WSJ reported ~3.5% stablecoin rewards vs. ~0.1% bank deposit rates | Frames stablecoin balances as competition for deposits and bank funding costs |
| Deposit draw scenario | WSJ reported a Treasury estimate of $6.6T in potential deposit drawdown | Pushes the dispute from consumer marketing into systemic-scale policy debate |
What the CLARITY Act text does on custody and DeFi
The legislative vehicle at the center of the debate is H.R. 3633, which passed the House and was sent to the Senate, where it was received and referred to the Senate Banking Committee on Sept. 18, 2025.
The bill text includes an explicit “Protection of Self-Custody” clause. It states consumers retain the right to maintain hardware or software wallets and to engage in direct peer-to-peer transactions, language that becomes a measuring stick for whether a final compromise protects retail custody choices while regulating intermediaries.
The House text also includes headings that carve out “DECENTRALIZED FINANCE ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO THIS ACT” in amendment sections touching both the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. That makes DeFi scope a drafting issue rather than an afterthought in the House approach.
For readers tracking broader DeFi policy debates, see CryptoSlate’s analysis on DeFi adoption and 2026 regulatory pressure.
The forward path now hinges on how negotiators classify stablecoin rewards and how that classification carries through committee text. One base-case outcome consistent with public reporting is continuation of talks that yields a partial compromise.
Under that path, programs branded as “rewards” could survive if tied to activity or membership constructs, while “passive” balance-based payouts are constrained by statutory definitions or implementing rules. That would shift product design toward payments rails, card programs, and usage incentives rather than a simple APY for holding.
A more optimistic scenario depends on a credible yield compromise reducing enough opposition for Senate Banking to re-calendar its markup. As of Feb. 9, no new date was posted to replace the postponed Jan. 15 session, leaving timing dependent on future committee action rather than a fixed schedule.
A downside path is that stablecoin yield stays a veto point, extending the gap between House-passed text and a Senate process that has already shown slippage. For related debate on yield-bearing stablecoins in Congress, see CryptoSlate’s earlier coverage of the STABLE Act markup controversy.
Global constraints, implementation risk, and what to watch next
For DeFi and retail users, the practical test will be whether statutory carve-outs and self-custody protections remain intact after Senate drafting and any House-Senate reconciliation. The House language on self-custody and peer-to-peer transfers is explicit in the current text.
That provides a basis for evaluating later versions that might narrow wallet rights through definitions of intermediated services or compliance triggers. The DeFi carve-out headings provide another anchor, but their real effect can hinge on how lawmakers and agencies define “DeFi activities,” “control,” and intermediation.
That implementation risk matters more if stablecoin rewards are regulated broadly. In that case, on-ramps, custodians, and interfaces become choke points for how yield-like value reaches users, even when the yield itself comes from outside the stablecoin issuer’s balance sheet.
The U.S. negotiation also sits against a global baseline where at least one major jurisdiction has already set constraints on “interest” for certain crypto-asset tokens. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation provides a reference point for limiting interest-like benefits in parts of the stablecoin category.
U.S. drafters face a competitive tradeoff between aligning with a restrictive model and permitting a rewards channel that functions as cash management for crypto-native and fintech distribution. For additional MiCA context, see CryptoSlate’s reporting on MiCA licensing across the EU.
For now, the next concrete signals to watch are whether the reported Feb. 10 meeting occurs and produces draft language that resolves the Feb. 2 deadlock.
Another key marker is whether Senate Banking posts a new date to replace the postponed Jan. 15 markup that was meant to consider H.R. 3633.