#Gate广场五月交易分享 The Earth-shattering Game! Cryptocurrency reaches an agreement with banks, but the "Clarity Act" suddenly faces a twist

In 2026, Washington, D.C. hosts the ultimate global crypto regulation showdown, concerning the fate of the trillion-dollar stablecoin market. After months of tug-of-war between the crypto industry and traditional banking, a compromise seemed to be reached on the "Clarity Act" (CLARITY Act). However, just before the bill's review by the Senate Banking Committee, U.S. banks suddenly "betrayed" the agreement, pointing out fatal loopholes that could trigger a massive bank deposit migration, with implications affecting global regulatory frameworks and dollar dominance.

1. Breakdown of the compromise: The "false peace" between crypto and banks
In early May, Republican Senator Tom Tillis and Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks reached a bipartisan agreement on the core stablecoin reward mechanism in the Clarity Act, clearing obstacles for the bill's progress.
The core consensus: Prohibit stablecoins from offering bank-like deposit interest to prevent deposit outflows, but not "one size fits all"; rewards tied to real activities like trading and payments are not included in the ban.
Upon news of this, the crypto industry cheered. Leading companies like Coinbase and Circle expressed support, and the market rebounded: Coinbase's stock rose 6%, Circle's stock surged nearly 20%.
Tillis stated that banks were involved throughout, and the plan balanced both sides' interests. But this "peace" lasted only three days. The American Bankers Association and four other banking associations jointly sent a letter to the Senate, strongly opposing the compromise. Banks argued that the extralegal provisions could bypass the reward ban, indirectly guiding funds from banks to stablecoins, and warned: "The proposed provisions include exceptions that allow circumventing the ban, encouraging customers to hold and grow stablecoin balances at the expense of deposits." In short, crypto platforms could offer high yields through "membership programs" or similar schemes—such as Coinbase's USDC membership reward with an annualized 3.5% yield—which is essentially "rebranded interest" that could threaten banks' core business and cause deposit outflows.

2. Core conflict: The trillion-dollar deposit war, banks' "survival anxiety"
The fierce opposition from banks stems from deep-seated survival concerns. The U.S. Treasury estimates that about $6.6 trillion in transactional deposits face high-yield stablecoin temptations.
For banks, deposits are fundamental: without deposits, lending cannot occur; a contraction in lending would impact the real economy and could cause volatility. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon bluntly said, "Paying interest on stablecoin balances is banking, and banks should be regulated." From the banking perspective, paying interest via stablecoins is a form of business encroachment and regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, in the crypto industry, rewards are a core competitive advantage. Currently, the global stablecoin market exceeds $317 billion in market cap, with trading volumes surpassing Visa, serving as the infrastructure for cross-border payments and Web3. Banning rewards would stall the industry. The essence of this game is a struggle over the "funds sedimentation rights" between traditional finance and crypto forces, with conflicting interests and no room for reconciliation.

3. The bill's fate: Voting next week, three major uncertainties determine life or death

The Clarity Act is now in a countdown to either passage or failure. The Senate Banking Committee's earliest vote is scheduled for May 14, but opposition from banks casts doubt on its prospects. There are three key uncertainties:
Uncertainty 1: Can loopholes be sealed? Banks demand the removal of all exceptions and a complete ban on stablecoin yields; crypto opposes this, arguing it stifles innovation. Will a compromise be reached to support the bill?
Uncertainty 2: Can bipartisan consensus be maintained? The bill relies on bipartisan support, but Democrats are divided, and some Republicans worry that strict restrictions will weaken industry competitiveness. Bank opposition could further deepen divisions.
Uncertainty 3: Can the regulatory landscape be reshaped? If the bill passes, the U.S. will establish the world's strictest stablecoin regulations, reinforcing dollar dominance; if it stalls, regulatory chaos may ensue, and markets could shift to Hong Kong or Singapore.

4. Global impact: The U.S. game unfolds against the backdrop of converging global stablecoin regulations.
Since 2026, the U.S., Europe, China, and Hong Kong have advanced regulation in tandem, forming a "tripartite stalemate." The U.S. aims to anchor dollar hegemony, restrict stablecoin interest payments, and allow bank subsidiaries to participate in issuance; the EU, through the MiCA framework, enforces strict regulation and requires 100% reserves; Hong Kong adopts a mixed approach of openness and strict control, issuing only two licenses initially, with a 94% rejection rate.

5. Conclusion
The game over the Clarity Act appears to be a battle over stablecoin rewards, but in reality, it reflects a contest for discourse dominance between traditional and digital finance, and is a microcosm of the ongoing reshaping of the global financial order. Next week's vote will be a critical turning point; regardless of the outcome, it will reshape the global digital financial landscape.