Daily Crypto Briefs 
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4, 2026
U.S. crypto legislation is stalling after a White House meeting failed to produce an agreement on whether stablecoins can pass yield or “rewards” to users, as bitcoin traded around $76,000 amid renewed policy uncertainty.
Banks want tighter limits on stablecoin rewards, while crypto groups argue that blocking yield entrenches incumbents and keeps consumers stuck in low-return, fee-heavy rails.
The gridlock comes as banking stress headlines remain fresh after the FDIC closed Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust in the first U.S. bank failure of 2026.
Prediction markets are also catching up. Polymarket odds of another U.S. bank failure by March 31 are now at 20% chance at the time of writing, a sign traders see continued stress risk after the first bank collapse of 2026, even as banking groups argue stablecoin rewards could worsen deposit outflows if consumers can earn more on tokenized dollars.
Another US bank failure by March 31? Live
Market snapshot: Bitcoin was about $76,064 and ether about $2,253 in midday trading, while total stablecoin supply stood near $305.2 billion with USDT at roughly 61% share, per DefiLlama’s stablecoin dashboard.
In a joint statement after the meeting, bank trade groups said stablecoin and crypto market-structure rules should protect traditional credit channels, writing that legislation must “support local lending and protect the safety and soundness of the financial system,” according to a statement posted by the Bank Policy Institute.
White House stablecoin yield talks end with no compromise
The meeting spotlighted a question lawmakers have avoided pinning down: should the value created by holding “digital dollars” flow back to users, or remain concentrated inside regulated intermediaries.
Crypto industry groups said the yield issue is now blocking progress on broader legislation. In a separate statement, the Blockchain Association said it wanted “meaningful progress” and warned that stablecoin rewards are becoming a gate that can stop the wider package.
This fight is not isolated. It is the same basic contest we have covered in the stablecoin lane: who owns the customer relationship, the distribution, and the economics. For the plain-English version of the banking playbook around stablecoins, see Banks Are Coming for the Stablecoin Market.
What is still not clear is what a workable compromise looks like. Public statements have framed the issue as binary, but policy outcomes often hinge on definitions: what counts as “issuer-paid yield,” what disclosures are required, and whether rewards programs are treated as banking products, securities products, or something closer to brokerage-style incentives.
One reason this gets messy is that “stablecoin yield” is not one thing. Policymakers can restrict interest paid by an issuer while still leaving room for rewards programs run by exchanges, brokers, wallets, or banks themselves, structures that can look similar to users but land very differently under law.
Banks want stablecoin rewards contained; consumers want the upside
Banks describe stablecoin rewards as a threat to deposits, and by extension a threat to lending. That is the public-interest framing: keep deposits in banks, keep funding stable, keep credit flowing.
The consumer framing is different and simpler. If a stablecoin balance can reliably earn more than a checking account, it highlights a reality many households feel: most of the interest-rate upside in the system accrues to institutions, while everyday savers get a small slice.
Put plainly, this is a distribution fight over yield. When banks can fund themselves cheaply and earn higher rates on assets, the spread is valuable. Allowing compliant stablecoin rewards pressures that spread and forces competition on what consumers receive for holding dollars.
The optics are hard to ignore. When the bill hits the yield question, bank lobbyists are in the room, and the conversation quickly shifts from innovation to “safety and soundness.” That can be a legitimate concern, but it is also the language incumbents use when they want regulators to protect an existing business model.
That is why the rhetoric runs hot. Banks warn about “financial stability.” Crypto advocates warn about “falling behind.” The underlying tension is about who controls money-like balances at scale and whether new rails can compete with the incumbents on price and user experience.
What the CLARITY Act delay means for the crypto bill timeline
The yield stalemate is landing on top of an already-slipping calendar. The Senate Banking Committee postponed its scheduled Jan. 15 markup on H.R. 3633, the CLARITY Act, and did not immediately disclose a replacement date, as we detailed in US Senate Voting On CLARITY Act Has Been Canceled.
Executives have also taken public positions that raise the cost of a “no-yield” outcome. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said on Jan. 14 that the company could not support the bill as written and objected to language that would “kill rewards on stablecoins,” according to Reuters.
If the process drags, the near-term impact is not a single rule change. It is prolonged ambiguity: issuers, exchanges, and banks keep building under a patchwork of interpretations, while consumers keep facing the same tradeoffs, limited yield on cash-like balances, higher friction moving money, and product access that can change with regulatory headlines.
Crypto advocates argue the larger risk is strategic: if Congress cannot pass a workable framework, stablecoin activity and payments innovation will keep migrating to jurisdictions with clearer rules, leaving the U.S. with less oversight and a weaker hand in shaping global dollar rails.
For a broader map of how the SEC, CFTC, and banking regulators intersect on stablecoins and market structure, see US Crypto Regulation 2026: SEC, CFTC, Stablecoins, Taxes.
The next catalyst is procedural, not ideological: watch for updated draft language on stablecoin rewards and any new Senate Banking scheduling signal. Until there is text both sides can live with, the “crypto bill” risks staying exactly where it is now, stuck between industry demands for consumer-friendly yield and banking pressure to keep the economics inside the old system.
Stay up to date
Get the latest crypto insights delivered to your inbox
Primary sources and further reading
Fact-checked by: Daily Crypto Briefs Fact-Check Desk
Frequently Asked Questions
What is “stablecoin yield” in the U.S. policy debate?
It usually means paying users a return on dollar-token balances, either directly from an issuer or indirectly via platform “rewards” programs funded by revenue from reserves or related business lines.
Why do banks oppose stablecoin rewards?
Banks argue that if stablecoins reliably pay higher returns than checking accounts, deposits can move out of banks, raising bank funding costs and potentially reducing credit available to households and small businesses.
What do crypto advocates want instead?
Crypto advocates want rules that allow compliant, transparent rewards programs so consumers can share in the economics of holding digital dollars, rather than leaving most of the spread captured by intermediaries.
What should readers watch next?
Watch for updated draft language on stablecoin rewards, any new Senate Banking schedule for market-structure work, and whether the White House convenes another round of talks with concrete redlines from each side.