#Gate广场五月交易分享 》Prediction of the Clear Bill Outcome

May 14 is the day marked for the Clear Bill vote. Now lobbying from all sides has reached a fever pitch, and the banking coalition is launching a frantic counteroffensive, trying to “steal the house.”
Within the past day, the American Bankers Association issued an emergency mobilization order to bank executives across the United States, instructing them to contact members of the Senate Banking Committee immediately. It also submitted two consecutive technical amendment proposals. The core demand is to completely shut down Section 404—i.e., the provisions for rewards tied to stablecoin activity.
The probability of the bill passing on Polymarket fell from 80% to 62%, and CRCL plunged in U.S. stocks last night. This shows that the market is truly in awe of the banking coalition’s final counterattack. This kind of uncertainty is what causes the CRCL board to repeatedly pull back and forth. This sense of awe indicates that the market’s main players clearly understand that in Washington, logic has never been what matters—the density of lobbying funds is what counts.
According to the current draft text and the direction of the “winds” in the background, there are three possible outcomes: 1) Maintain the status quo (probability 40%). Clearly prohibit paying interest solely due to holding, and exempt activity rewards based on transactions, liquidity, and staking. At present, this version is the bottom line for Coinb and Circle. 2) Fine-tune the standards (probability 40%). To calm the banking coalition’s pushback, they may add a revision clause to reassure the banks—for example, adding requirements for compliance review. Circle and Coinb would be required to be reviewed on a scheduled basis to verify that their activity rewards are not issued on time or in fixed, predetermined amounts, to show that they are not interest or a variant of interest. This modification would not cancel the rewards, but it would increase compliance costs. Although it adds another layer of shackles, at least it preserves the foundation of the business logic.
3) Fully gut it (probability 20%). It’s a low-probability event, but the one they’re most worried about—it’s exactly this scenario. They fear that the banking coalition could team up with far-right lawmakers to launch a surprise raid. After all, bipartisan consensus like this on a bill is not necessarily unbreakable.
For CRCL investors, of course option 1 is best, and option 2 is also acceptable. If the low-probability event really happens, the impact on CRCL would be catastrophic. The fluctuation in the bill’s passing probability on Polymarket also makes it clear that although it’s low probability, it’s still possible.
The reason the banking coalition is fighting back is that they fear CRCL forming a set of new financial infrastructure: USDC + legal identity + a payments network. They want to force CRCL—using this kind of “ring-fencing/coordination” tactic—into a pure wallet that has no interest and cannot provide rewards, thereby maintaining the banks’ absolute monopoly on cheap funds.
After grinding through the Senate for so long, if it passes smoothly today, it will be more enforceable and longer-lasting than the version in the House. That means it gets approval from the United States’ traditional financial power—i.e., the old money. If the banking coalition “steals the house,” it would collapse the valuation logic, turning CRCL from an internet-based new financial ecosystem back into a traditional remittance tool under tight regulation.
The main event is about to begin—this is a zero-sum game between new money seizing power and old money defending its wall.