Why Banks Want to Kill the US Crypto Bill: The Power Struggle Behind Stablecoin Yield Disputes

2026-01-21 03:34:38

U.S. cryptocurrency market regulation is陷入 an awkward deadlock. The “CLARITY Act,” which should clarify regulatory boundaries and empower legitimate operations of crypto platforms, now faces the risk of being shelved due to a clause concerning stablecoin yield mechanisms. Recently, Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz pointed out that political interference from traditional banks is threatening the entire bill’s prospects, once again playing out the old script of regulatory policies being hijacked by vested interests.

Controversy Focus: A Business War That Seems Like a Technical Issue

Whether stablecoins can provide yields to holders appears to be a technical question, but in reality, it is a naked commercial competition. According to the latest reports, crypto platforms like Coinbase generate 18-20% of their total revenue from stablecoin yields (full-year 2025 data). This is not a small figure; it is a significant profit source for these platforms.

The Fundamental Difference in Positions

Aspect	Crypto Platforms	Traditional Banks
Position	Allow stablecoin yields	Prohibit or strictly limit yields
Rationale	User rights, market competition	Protect traditional financial products
Impact	18-20% of platform revenue	Reduced competitiveness of deposit products

The banks’ logic is simple: stablecoin yields will attract user funds to crypto platforms rather than to bank accounts. This directly threatens the core business of traditional banks—interest income from deposits. Therefore, they mobilize political influence, teaming up with bipartisan lawmakers to oppose this clause.

Bill’s Original Intent vs. Reality

The original intent of the “CLARITY Act” was good: to clarify the regulatory framework for stablecoins and give compliant platforms a legal operating space. According to relevant information, the “GENIUS Act” has already explicitly allowed crypto platforms to offer yield mechanisms. However, the “CLARITY Act” has become embroiled in fierce tug-of-war over this point.

Who Are the Real Losers

Mike Novogratz’s criticism is clear: if the bill ultimately stalls due to opposition from banks, the real losers will be American consumers.

Possible Chain Reactions

Crypto platforms lose a clear legal framework for operation, regulatory uncertainty persists
U.S. crypto industry falls behind in global competition
Consumers lose the opportunity to earn stablecoin yields through compliant channels
Industry innovation is hindered, capital and talent may flow overseas

What Can Change

From current information, this battle is still ongoing. Mike Novogratz calls for “rational voices to prevail,” but political realities are often much more complex than rationality. The influence of the banking industry in Washington should not be underestimated, and bipartisan support indicates this is no longer just an industry issue but has become a political bargaining chip.

Whether the bill can ultimately pass depends on whether the crypto industry can mobilize enough political influence to counteract traditional financial lobbying. This is not only a competition of technology and business but also a contest of political will.

Summary

The controversy over stablecoin yield mechanisms exposes deep issues in U.S. crypto regulation: the continued significant influence of vested interests on policy. Banks oppose this not because the clause is unreasonable, but because it threatens the existing structure of traditional finance. If the bill is indeed shelved as a result, it means American consumers are being held hostage by protectionist policies of traditional finance. This represents a major political test for the entire industry.

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.