#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, involving the fate of the trillion-dollar stablecoin market.
The crypto and banking industries have been at odds for months, seemingly reaching a compromise on the "Clarity Act" (CLARITY Act), but just before the bill advances through the Senate Banking Committee, U.S. banks suddenly "betray" it, pointing out fatal loopholes that could trigger a massive bank deposit migration, 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 of the Clarity Act, clearing obstacles for the bill's progress.
The core consensus: Ban stablecoin interest payments that resemble bank deposits to prevent deposit outflows, but not "one size fits all"; rewards linked to real activities like trading and payments are not included in the ban.
Once the news broke, the crypto industry cheered. Leading companies like Coinbase and Circle expressed support, and the market warmed: Coinbase's stock rose 6%, and 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.
The banking sector openly stated 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 bypassing the ban, encouraging customers to hold and grow stablecoin balances at the expense of deposits." In simple terms, crypto platforms could offer high yields through "membership programs," such as Coinbase's USDC membership reward of 3.5% annualized, which is essentially "rebranded interest" that could threaten banks' core business and cause deposit withdrawals.
2. Core conflict: Trillion-dollar deposit war, banks' "survival anxiety"
The fierce opposition from banks stems from deep-seated survival fears. The U.S. Treasury estimates that about $6.6 trillion in transactional deposits face the high-yield temptation of stablecoins.
For banks, deposits are fundamental: without deposits, they cannot lend; reduced lending impacts 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, the core competitiveness of crypto lies in its reward mechanisms. 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 battle over "funding 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 in a countdown to life or death. The Senate Banking Committee's earliest vote is scheduled for May 14, but opposition from the banking sector casts doubt on its prospects, with three major uncertainties.
Uncertainty 1: Can loopholes be closed? Banks demand the removal of all exceptions and a complete ban on stablecoin interest; crypto opposes, 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. Currently, there are divisions within the Democratic Party, and some Republican lawmakers worry that strict restrictions will weaken industry competitiveness. Banking opposition could intensify conflicts.
Uncertainty 3: Can the regulatory landscape be reshaped? If the bill passes, the U.S. will establish the world's strictest stablecoin regulation, consolidating 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 uphold dollar hegemony by restricting stablecoin interest payments and allowing bank subsidiaries to issue stablecoins; 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 contest over stablecoin rewards, but in reality, it is a struggle for discourse dominance between traditional finance and digital finance, and a microcosm of the global financial order's restructuring. Next week's vote will be a critical turning point; regardless of the outcome, it will reshape the global digital financial landscape.