A new study from White House economists has found that banks would gain little from a prohibition on stablecoin yield, a conclusion that lends support to the crypto industry’s stance in ongoing legislative negotiations. The findings come as lawmakers continue to debate the terms of the Clarity Act in the Senate. The study adds a notable dimension to a dispute that has kept the bill in a prolonged holding pattern.
The White House has expressed a clear interest in advancing the Clarity Act, which is intended to establish broad regulations governing the U.S. crypto industry. Despite that urgency, the legislation has stalled as competing interests clash over the stablecoin yield question. Banks and crypto insiders have been at odds over how the final bill should address the issue.
At the center of the dispute is whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer yield to holders, a feature that banks argue gives crypto firms an unfair competitive advantage. The White House study appears to challenge that argument by suggesting the financial benefit to banks from such a ban would be limited. This positions the administration’s own research in closer alignment with the crypto sector’s preferred outcome.
The Clarity Act represents one of the most significant attempts to bring regulatory structure to the U.S. digital asset market. Reaching a final agreement on the stablecoin provisions is seen as a key step before the bill can move forward. Both sides have been engaged in active negotiations as the White House pushes for a resolution.
The release of the study may shift the dynamics of those talks by providing an official economic basis for skepticism toward the bank-backed position. Whether it is enough to break the legislative deadlock remains to be seen. The outcome of the Senate debate is expected to have lasting implications for how stablecoins are regulated across the country.
Originally reported by CoinDesk.
