People are overthinking the CLARITY rumors. Stablecoins never have and never will compete head to head with US bank deposits.

US bank deposits have a structural advantage - they accrue yield at higher rates than tbills + are FDIC insured.
A tokenized deposit is going to beat a stablecoin most of the time, even if there’s no rent-seeking shenanigans about prohibiting yield.
But not everyone can have access to US bank deposits. Stablecoins meet demand for US dollar assets in jurisdictions and geographies where USD denominations are hard to source or low quality.
Tether doesn’t compete with BOA or JPM; they compete with crappy Peruvian banks and shady unlicensed Bangladeshi deposit takers. They don’t *need* to be perfect, just better than the alternatives.
Stablecoins, while not useless domestically, especially as payment channels, are mostly an overseas product when it comes to store of value. It’s why Circle is in a losing game (and to a lesser extent Paxos, whose stablecoin-as-service is often relying on customers in the same boat as Circle) and Tether is weaker than they appear and vulnerable to disruption (no one actually tries to compete with them in Algeria or Bolivia or Laos).
Crypto has avoided collecting data on their users, and so struggles to identify the value proposition to users. That needs to change, and stablecoins are the most immediate beneficiaries of adopting an obsession over user experience and needs.