The largest banking associations in the United States, including the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), supported by 76 regional organizations, have sent a collective letter to the Senate demanding stricter language in the CLARITY Act. The main complaint is an insufficiently clear ban on paying yield on stablecoins.
Bankers generally support the creation of a regulated digital asset market but are demanding a revision of Section 404 of the document. In their view, the current version leaves "loopholes" for payments that are economically indistinguishable from bank interest on deposits. The letter explicitly states that ambiguities in the law could trigger the emergence of schemes where stablecoins become a direct replacement for traditional deposits.
Where is the line between yield and rewards?
According to the current version of the CLARITY Act, crypto service providers are prohibited from accruing passive interest on balances of payment stablecoins. However, the law allows rewards for real actions and transactions. Specific criteria are to be jointly developed by the SEC, CFTC, and the U.S. Treasury Department.
Banks insist that this line is too blurred. They propose directly excluding payments whose amount depends on the user's volume of stablecoins, the duration of their holding, or the time spent on the platform. Moreover, the associations demand replacing the criterion of "functional and economic equivalent" to interest with a broader standard of "substantial similarity." In their view, this would block the possibility of circumventing the ban through complex bonus programs.
The main argument of the banking lobby is the threat to regional lending. They claim that a mass outflow of deposits into stablecoins will deprive small businesses, farmers, and mortgage borrowers of access to borrowed funds.
Political background and regulatory stance
Recall that the CLARITY Act, which aims to create a unified federal system for regulating the crypto market and delineate the powers of the SEC and CFTC, has already passed a key vote in the Senate Banking Committee (15 votes in favor versus 9). However, a date for consideration by the full chamber has not yet been set.
Pressure on lawmakers is growing. CFTC Chairman Michael Selig threatened that if Congress does not speed up, regulators will write the rules for the industry themselves. President Donald Trump also called for this. Interestingly, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon previously criticized the law precisely for the possibility of payments to stablecoin holders, stating that crypto companies wishing to offer "interest" should obtain banking licenses.
Expert opinion: This battle is a classic example of protecting a traditional business model. Banks see yield-bearing stablecoins as a direct threat to their monopoly on "risk-free" interest. If lawmakers give in to lobbyists and introduce the broadest possible ban, it will seriously slow down the development of DeFi in the U.S. and force stablecoin issuers to seek jurisdictions with more flexible regulation. Investors should prepare for the possibility that "boxed" products with passive income may disappear from the legal field in the U.S.