#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 to the Senate Banking Committee, U.S. banks suddenly "betray" it, pointing out fatal flaws 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 similar to 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%, 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 draft bill's extraneous clauses could bypass the reward ban, indirectly guiding funds from banks to stablecoins, and warned: "The proposed clauses contain exceptions that allow circumventing 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" or similar schemes—such as Coinbase's USDC membership reward with an annualized 3.5% yield—which is essentially "rebranded interest" that threatens banks' core business and could lead to deposit outflows.
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 lure of high-yield stablecoins.
For banks, deposits are the foundation: without deposits, they cannot lend, and reduced lending impacts the real economy, potentially causing volatility. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon bluntly said, "Paying interest on stablecoin balances is banking; it should be regulated as such."
From the banking perspective, paying interest via stablecoins is a form of business encroachment and regulatory arbitrage. Conversely, the core competitiveness of the crypto industry 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 the "right to capital sedimentation" between traditional finance and crypto forces, with conflicting interests and no room for reconciliation.
3. The fate of the bill: 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 vote could come as early as May 14. 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 advocates oppose 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 divisions exist within the Democratic Party. 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 regulations, 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 law, 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 "Clarity Act" game appears to be a battle over stablecoin rewards, but in essence, it is a contest for the discourse power between traditional and digital finance, and a microcosm of the global financial order's reconfiguration. Next week's vote will be a critical turning point; regardless of the outcome, it will reshape the global digital financial landscape.