The President-backed effort to set broader rules for US crypto markets is nearing a political deadline in Congress as banks press lawmakers and regulators to block stablecoin companies from offering rewards that resemble interest on deposits.
The fight has become one of the central unresolved questions in Washington’s crypto agenda. At stake is whether dollar-linked digital tokens remain focused on payments and settlement or gain features that make them more competitive with bank accounts and money market funds.
The Senate’s market-structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, has stalled after negotiations broke down over so-called stablecoin yield.
Industry participants and lobbyists say late April or early May is shaping up as the practical window for the bill to move if it is to have a realistic chance before the election-year calendar tightens.
CRS sharpens the legal question
Congressional Research Service has framed the issue more narrowly than the public fight around it.
In a March 6 report, CRS said the GENIUS Act bars stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly, but may not fully settle the status of what it called a “three-party model,” in which an intermediary such as an exchange stands between issuer and end user.
CRS said the act does not clearly define “holder,” leaving room for debate over whether intermediaries can still pass economic value through to customers. That ambiguity has become one of the main reasons banks want Congress to revisit the issue in the broader market-structure bill.
Banks say even limited rewards could turn stablecoins into a stronger competitor for deposits, especially at regional and community lenders.
However, crypto firms argue that incentives tied to payments, wallet usage or network activity would help digital dollars compete with older payment rails and could widen their role in mainstream finance.
That split also reflects different views of what stablecoins are becoming.
If lawmakers treat them mainly as payment instruments, the logic for tighter limits on rewards becomes stronger. However, if lawmakers see them as part of a broader shift in how value moves through digital platforms, the argument for limited incentives becomes easier to make.
Bank groups have urged lawmakers to close what they call a loophole before reward structures spread more widely. They say allowing rewards on idle balances would encourage deposit migration away from banks, reducing a key funding source for loans to households and businesses.
Standard Chartered estimated in January that stablecoins could draw about $500 billion from US bank deposits by the end of 2028, with smaller lenders facing the greatest strain.
The banking industry has also tried to show lawmakers that the position carries consumer backing. The American Bankers Association (ABA) recently published the results of a Morning Consult survey on stablecoins, fintech innovation and regulatory preferences.
According to the survey, respondents, by a 3-to-1 margin, said they agreed with congressional prohibitions on stablecoin rewards if the question raised the prospect of reduced funds available to banks to lend in the community and support economic growth. By a 6-to-1 margin, respondents said stablecoin laws should be cautious and should avoid steps that could undermine the existing financial system, particularly community banks.
However, crypto firms have pushed back by arguing that banks are trying to protect their funding model by limiting competition from digital dollars.
Industry advocates, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, have argued that stablecoin issuers operate under stricter reserve requirements than banks under the GENIUS Act, which requires issued stablecoins to be fully backed by cash or cash equivalents.
The volume story has raised the stakes in Washington
The market’s scale has made the rewards dispute harder to dismiss as a niche argument.
Boston Consulting Group estimated that only about $4.2 trillion of roughly $62 trillion in gross stablecoin transfer volume last year represented real economic activity after stripping out bots, exchange flows, and other internal movements.
That gap between headline volume and underlying economic use helps explain why the debate over rewards has taken on greater importance.
If stablecoins remain largely a settlement tool for trading and market structure, lawmakers may find it easier to keep them boxed in as payment instruments. If rewards help them become a widely used store of cash inside consumer apps, the pressure on banks could rise more quickly.
As a result, the White House tried to broker a compromise earlier this year that would have allowed some rewards in narrow use cases, such as peer-to-peer payments, while barring returns on idle holdings. Crypto companies accepted that framework, but banks rejected it, leaving the Senate talks at an impasse.
However, even if Congress does not act, regulators may still narrow the path for reward structures.
In a proposed rule to implement the GENIUS Act, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said it would presume an issuer is effectively paying prohibited yield if it funds an affiliate or related third party that then pays yield to stablecoin holders.
That signals the administration may try to police the issue through rulemaking if lawmakers fail to produce a legislative fix.
Congress is running short on time
The fight now has two tracks. Congress is debating whether to settle the matter in statute, while regulators are moving to define how far companies can go under the law already on the books.
For the Senate bill, the calendar itself has become a source of pressure.
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of research, wrote on X:
“If Clarity doesn’t pass committee by the end of April, odds of passage in 2026 become extremely low. This needs to hit the Senate floor by early May. Floor time is running out, and the odds diminish every day that passes.”
Thorn also expressed caution about the chances of a breakthrough even if the rewards fight is resolved, saying:
“The framing right now is that the dispute over stablecoin rewards is holding up the Clarity Act. But even if compromise is reached on rewards, there are very likely to be other hurdles.”
Those challenges could include regulations pertaining to the decentralized finance sector, the powers of regulators, or “even ethics,” Thorn said.
The issue of crypto regulation is likely to become a larger political battleground ahead of the midterm elections in November. That adds another layer of urgency to the current impasse, because a delayed bill would have to compete with a more crowded political calendar and a harder legislative path.
Prediction markets reflect that shift in sentiment. In early January, Polymarket placed the odds of passage at 80%. After recent setbacks, including Armstrong calling the current version of the bill unworkable, the odds moved closer to 50%.
Data from Kalshi shows that the bill has only a 7% chance of passage before May and 65% before the end of the year.
Failure would leave more to regulators and the market
The consequences of failure reach beyond the current dispute over rewards. The CLARITY Act is meant to define when crypto tokens are securities, commodities or otherwise, and to provide a clearer legal framework for how the market is overseen.
If the bill stalls, the industry would remain more dependent on guidance, rulemaking and future political turnover.
That is one reason market participants have focused so heavily on the bill’s fate. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan argued earlier this year that the Clarity Act would cement the current pro-crypto regulatory environment into law. Without it, he said, a future administration could reverse the current policy push.
Hougan wrote that if the bill fails, crypto would enter a “show me” period and have three years to make itself indispensable to the everyday lives of regular Americans and the traditional financial industry.
In that view, future gains would depend less on investors pricing in a durable legislative win and more on whether stablecoins, tokenized assets, and related products can prove broader real-world adoption.
That creates two distinct paths for the market. Passage could lead investors to price in the growth of stablecoins and tokenization sooner. Failure could leave future growth more contingent on adoption and more exposed to skepticism about whether Washington’s current support will survive the next turn in politics.
For now, the next move belongs to Washington. If senators can revive the market-structure bill this spring, lawmakers may still define how far stablecoins can go in sharing value with users and how much of the broader crypto framework can be locked into statute. If they cannot, regulators appear ready to draw at least part of that line themselves.
Either way, the issue now reaches beyond whether stablecoins are part of finance. The fight has moved to how they will function inside it, and who gets paid as they grow.