Stablecoin Yield Debate Deepens as U.S. Bill Remains Stalled

A regulatory dispute over stablecoin rewards has intensified after The Digital Chamber released a new set of policy principles challenging proposals backed by major Wall Street banking interests.

At the center of the debate is whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield or transaction-based incentives to users.

The disagreement has stalled progress on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a Senate bill designed to define the regulatory perimeter for digital assets in the United States.

Competing Frameworks on Stablecoin Rewards

Banking-aligned policy proposals call for a total prohibition on all financial and non-financial incentives tied to stablecoin usage. Their core argument is that yield-bearing stablecoins could accelerate “deposit flight” from traditional banks, potentially destabilizing the U.S. banking system.

In contrast, the Digital Chamber’s principles support transaction-based rewards and DeFi-related incentives, while signaling willingness to forgo interest-like returns on static holdings that resemble savings accounts.

The industry position attempts to draw a functional distinction between passive yield and rewards tied to active transactional utility. This concession represents a narrowing of scope rather than a full defense of interest-bearing models.

Legislative Context: The GENIUS Act

The debate intersects with the existing 2025 Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which requires 1-to-1 backing of stablecoins with liquid reserves such as U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury instruments.

Banking groups are reportedly seeking amendments that would restrict or eliminate reward structures. Meanwhile, industry advocates argue that competitive neutrality is necessary if stablecoins are to evolve as a scalable payment layer rather than a static dollar wrapper.

Major firms including Coinbase have previously withdrawn support for broader market structure legislation that included strict reward bans, contributing to the current impasse.

Political Timeline and Pressure

President Donald Trump’s administration has reportedly set a late February 2026 deadline for stakeholders to reach a compromise. That deadline adds urgency to negotiations, as failure to reconcile positions could delay comprehensive stablecoin legislation further.

The central policy tension remains unresolved: whether stablecoins should function purely as fully reserved digital cash equivalents or evolve into programmable financial instruments with incentive layers.

Structural Implications

The Digital Chamber’s proposal signals that parts of the crypto industry are prepared to limit passive yield in order to preserve transactional reward flexibility. That shift suggests an attempt to balance banking concerns with the functional design of decentralized finance ecosystems.

Until a legislative compromise is reached, regulatory uncertainty is likely to persist. The outcome will shape not only stablecoin design parameters but also the competitive landscape between traditional banking institutions and digital payment infrastructure providers.

The post Stablecoin Yield Debate Deepens as U.S. Bill Remains Stalled appeared first on ETHNews.