【BlockBeats】A recent analysis report released by Wall Street institution Bernstein reveals a concerning phenomenon: the window for the US to advance the crypto market structure bill is rapidly closing. Analyst Gautam Chhugani pointed out that the core issue is not the definition of digital commodities or DeFi regulation as outlined in the Clarity Act, which, while contentious, are not major obstacles.
The real trouble stems from another direction—the intense confrontation between the banking sector and the crypto industry over stablecoin yield issues. There is a complex background here: last year, the Trump administration signed the GENIUS Act, which prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying yields directly to users but allows crypto platforms to distribute yields to users through affiliated channels (typically annualized 2%-4%).
The banking industry’s logic is straightforward—they see these yield incentives as a deadly threat to traditional deposits. Considering the current size of the stablecoin market has exceeded $275 billion and could grow to trillions, this area is classified as “systemically important,” and the banking sector’s concerns are not unfounded.
The crypto industry, on the other hand, views this from a different perspective. They believe reopening this debate is akin to overturning existing legislative compromises, which is anti-competitive and violates free market principles. More critically, if the current yield arrangements cannot be maintained, it could undermine the entire incentive structure of the stablecoin ecosystem.
The problem is that both sides see this as an inviolable red line. Bernstein’s analysis warns that if a compromise cannot be reached in the short term, the risk of bill delays or even failure will significantly increase. The timeline is also tight—substantial progress on the bill must be made by the second quarter of 2026 at the latest, or political changes from mid-term elections could completely alter the situation.
Although the Trump administration currently shows a pro-crypto stance, creating a favorable environment for the industry, Chhugani emphasizes that if this yield dispute continues to escalate, the momentum for advancing the bill could stall. In his words, we are currently in a “critical window”—there is little time left for negotiations and compromises.
View Original
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasFeeWhisperer
· 12h ago
The bank guys are really panicking. 2-4% returns are enough to scare them like this? That's hilarious. Traditional finance is just this narrow-minded.
View OriginalReply0
DarkPoolWatcher
· 14h ago
The bank guys are really getting anxious. Can the small returns from stablecoins threaten them? It shows that traditional finance is indeed on the decline.
View OriginalReply0
StillBuyingTheDip
· 14h ago
Uh... wait, are banks afraid of stablecoin yields? Is this guy confused? Traditional banks are already doomed.
---
It's the same old story, is the Clarity Act about to be scrapped? I believe in the window period, but is it really just because of stablecoin 2% yields?
---
Laughing to death, is the banking industry so fragile that a few points of APY scare them like this?
---
So ultimately, it's all about profit distribution. No one wants to relinquish control.
---
The design of the GENIUS Act... feels like it's just giving a gold star to traditional finance.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotStriker
· 14h ago
Ha, it's those bank folks causing trouble again. What are they afraid of... A 2-4% return is enough to scare them so much?
The real competitor to stablecoins isn't legislation, but the greed of banks.
Tight window period? I think it's the banks feeling the pressure and starting to shift blame.
Why do they have to restrict stablecoin yields? Isn't that hindering innovation?
This time, it might end in failure again. As soon as banks get involved, everything turns sour.
Cryptocurrency legislation always dies at the last step, either due to design flaws or conflicts of interest.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketMonk
· 15h ago
Here we go again, that group of people at the bank just can't stand us making money.
Is the window period urgent? Honestly, it's just a game of利益 (interests), they also want to抢 (grab) the profits from stablecoins.
What's so scary about a 2%-4% annualized return? They really think traditional finance is too fragile.
If this bill actually passes, it would be a bad thing, giving banks more reasons to卡 (clamp down on) us.
Wake up, don't be naive to think there will be any good results.
Institutions have already taken sides, just waiting to see how retail investors get割 (cut).
The battle for stablecoin yields becomes a key variable as the window for US crypto legislation approval tightens
【BlockBeats】A recent analysis report released by Wall Street institution Bernstein reveals a concerning phenomenon: the window for the US to advance the crypto market structure bill is rapidly closing. Analyst Gautam Chhugani pointed out that the core issue is not the definition of digital commodities or DeFi regulation as outlined in the Clarity Act, which, while contentious, are not major obstacles.
The real trouble stems from another direction—the intense confrontation between the banking sector and the crypto industry over stablecoin yield issues. There is a complex background here: last year, the Trump administration signed the GENIUS Act, which prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying yields directly to users but allows crypto platforms to distribute yields to users through affiliated channels (typically annualized 2%-4%).
The banking industry’s logic is straightforward—they see these yield incentives as a deadly threat to traditional deposits. Considering the current size of the stablecoin market has exceeded $275 billion and could grow to trillions, this area is classified as “systemically important,” and the banking sector’s concerns are not unfounded.
The crypto industry, on the other hand, views this from a different perspective. They believe reopening this debate is akin to overturning existing legislative compromises, which is anti-competitive and violates free market principles. More critically, if the current yield arrangements cannot be maintained, it could undermine the entire incentive structure of the stablecoin ecosystem.
The problem is that both sides see this as an inviolable red line. Bernstein’s analysis warns that if a compromise cannot be reached in the short term, the risk of bill delays or even failure will significantly increase. The timeline is also tight—substantial progress on the bill must be made by the second quarter of 2026 at the latest, or political changes from mid-term elections could completely alter the situation.
Although the Trump administration currently shows a pro-crypto stance, creating a favorable environment for the industry, Chhugani emphasizes that if this yield dispute continues to escalate, the momentum for advancing the bill could stall. In his words, we are currently in a “critical window”—there is little time left for negotiations and compromises.