A fight over stablecoin rewards has become a test of who gets to shape the next payments market: banks defending deposits or crypto firms defending consumer incentives.
The White House has turned a technical clause in the CLARITY Act into a public argument about market power. Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House Presidential Advisory Committee on Digital Assets, said major banking trade leaders refused to attend earlier meetings meant to settle the fight over stablecoin rewards, according to CryptoSlate. That claim matters because the dispute is no longer just about statutory wording. It is about whether startups building dollar-backed payment products will be allowed to compete on price, speed and customer incentives.
The issue sounds narrow at first. Stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms want room to offer rewards tied to the use of dollar-backed tokens. Banks want Congress to block anything that looks like yield, interest or a benefit for holding stablecoins. The difference between those two positions could decide whether regulated stablecoins become a low-cost payments layer for consumers and businesses, or remain a settlement tool that is useful but harder to sell to ordinary users.
Witt's latest criticism follows months of meetings between the White House, Senate negotiators, crypto firms and banking groups. Earlier talks included Coinbase, Ripple, a16z, Paxos, the Blockchain Association and the Crypto Council for Innovation on the crypto side. The banking side has been represented through trade groups such as the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute and the Independent Community Bankers of America, while earlier sessions also drew representatives from large banks including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. The White House had been trying to turn that crowd into a compromise. Instead, it has exposed how much each side has to lose.
The core language at issue is whether the CLARITY Act should prohibit stablecoin issuers, affiliates or third parties from paying yield or offering reward-like incentives connected to payment stablecoins. The GENIUS Act already barred issuers from paying interest directly on stablecoins, but left uncertainty around affiliated platforms and third-party reward programs. Crypto firms saw that opening as room for rewards tied to payments, transaction activity or ecosystem participation. Banks saw it as a loophole large enough to drain deposits.
This distinction is important for entrepreneurs because stablecoin rewards are not only a compliance issue. They can be a customer acquisition tool. Coinbase, for example, has used USDC-related rewards to make holding and using stablecoins feel closer to a modern fintech product than a dormant wallet balance. Payment startups could use similar incentives to encourage merchants to accept tokenized dollars, reward users for sending money across borders, or build loyalty programs around instant settlement. If Congress writes the ban broadly, many of those models become harder to justify.
Banks argue the risk is bigger than one product feature. Their position is that reward-bearing stablecoins could pull money out of checking and savings accounts, especially at community banks that depend on deposits to fund local lending. If consumers can earn more through a stablecoin account than through a bank account, the argument goes, deposits will migrate toward crypto platforms and reserve assets, reducing the funds banks use for mortgages, small business loans and credit lines.
That concern deserves attention, but it is not the whole story. The White House Council of Economic Advisers published analysis in April arguing that a ban on stablecoin rewards would do little to improve bank lending, and that the impact on community banks would be limited under realistic assumptions. Banks reject that reading, saying even if total deposits stay inside the banking system, the reserves behind stablecoins could concentrate at larger institutions and weaken smaller lenders. In other words, they are not only worried about crypto taking deposits. They are worried about who controls the deposits after stablecoins grow.
Rewards are not all the same
Crypto firms are trying to separate idle yield from transaction-based rewards. Idle yield looks very close to interest: a customer holds a stablecoin balance and receives a return simply for keeping it there. Transaction rewards are different in structure, even if consumers experience them as money back. They can look more like card rewards, merchant incentives or promotional credits tied to activity. The White House compromise has reportedly leaned toward allowing rewards connected to actual transactions while restricting payouts on passive balances.
That distinction is also where securities concerns enter the conversation. An interest-bearing securities product normally involves an investment expectation, a return generated by lending, trading or other productive use of capital, and a regulatory framework built around disclosure and investor protection. A fully reserved payment stablecoin is supposed to be different. It is meant to be redeemable one-for-one for dollars, backed by cash, short-term Treasuries or similar assets, and used for payments rather than investment. The trouble is that a reward can blur that line if it is marketed like a return on money.
For stablecoin startups, the practical question is not philosophical. It is whether they can design products around payments without being forced into the economics of banks or brokerages. A broad ban would favor companies that already have scale, distribution and banking relationships. A narrower rule would give newer entrants more room to build around merchant settlement, payroll, remittances and fintech partnerships. That is why one legislative clause has become a business model question.
The timing makes the fight sharper. Senate negotiators have been trying to move the CLARITY Act forward before the political window narrows, while banking groups continue to press lawmakers to close what they call a stablecoin loophole. Crypto advocates say the banks are defending market share under the language of safety. Banks say crypto firms want banking-like benefits without banking-like obligations. Both arguments contain some truth, which is why the clause is so difficult to write cleanly.
The next thing to watch is whether Congress draws a bright line between rewards for using stablecoins and yield for holding them. If lawmakers get that distinction right, stablecoin companies may still have room to compete with card networks and bank payment rails. If they get it wrong, the most important U.S. crypto bill of the year could protect the old deposit model while leaving the next generation of payment startups with fewer ways to win customers.
Also read: An Optane home server makes trillion parameter AI feel almost practical • Meta shows why AI mandates can break employee trust • Palantir's NHS data access fight tests trust in health AI
