A White House-brokered meeting between banks and crypto firms aimed at resolving stablecoin provisions in a broader market structure bill ended without agreement, though participants described the session as productive.
The dispute centres on whether stablecoin issuers and platforms should be allowed to offer yield or rewards.
With bipartisan support in the Senate still uncertain and a March 1 deadline set by the administration, pressure is building to narrow differences and prevent further delays to legislation defining how US regulators oversee digital assets.
Yield dispute slows Senate bill
Copy link to section
Congress is seeking to pass legislation clarifying how US market regulators should police crypto.
The House approved the CLARITY Act in July, but the Senate Banking Committee has yet to secure sufficient bipartisan backing.
Momentum weakened last month when Coinbase withdrew support over provisions prohibiting all yield payments tied to stablecoins.
Banking lobbyists argue that the yield offered on third-party platforms such as exchanges could divert funds from traditional deposits and undermine the banking system.
At the White House meeting, banking groups circulated a handout outlining “yield and interest prohibition principles” they want included in the Senate bill, reinforcing their push to ban stablecoin yield payments.
Tweets signal cautious progress
Copy link to section
Several attendees posted on X after the session. Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty indicated the meeting was productive and that compromise may be possible, while pointing to bipartisan momentum behind market structure legislation.
Dan Spuller of the Blockchain Association said the gathering was smaller and more focused, with detailed discussion of stablecoin rewards.
He noted banks negotiated from broad prohibitive principles rather than the bill text, which remains a central disagreement.
After a first @WhiteHouse meeting last week, today’s follow-up shifted from broad discussion to serious problem-solving.
This was a smaller, more focused session.
Stablecoin rewards were front and center. Banks did not come to negotiate from the bill text, instead arriving with
Journalist Eleanor Terrett reported that although no agreement was reached, negotiations moved into more detailed territory than earlier talks.
Exemptions and permissible activities debated
Copy link to section
Banking representatives included language allowing for “any proposed exemption” tied to transaction based rewards, a shift from earlier refusals to consider exemptions.
Debate centred on “permissible activities,” meaning what account behaviour would allow crypto firms to offer rewards.
Crypto companies pushed broader definitions, while banks argued for narrower limits to reduce regulatory exposure and systemic risk.
Three trade groups, the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, and the Independent Community Bankers of America, said ongoing discussions are needed.
They stressed that any framework must support innovation without undermining safety and soundness or putting deposits that fuel local lending and economic activity at risk.
March 1 deadline increases pressure
Copy link to section
Tuesday’s session was the second in two weeks. The first, held on Feb. 2 and led by White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt, was described as constructive and fact-based.
The latest meeting was led by Witt as Executive Director of the President’s Crypto Council and included Senate Banking Committee staff.
Crypto participants included Coinbase, a16z, Ripple, Paxos, and the Blockchain Association. Banks present included Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi, PNC, and US Bank.
BitGo Chief Executive Mike Belshe posted on X, arguing the GENIUS Act, which banned stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly, should not be revisited and that the market structure bill should not be delayed.
The White House has urged both sides to reach an agreement by March 1. Further discussions are expected, though another full meeting before the deadline remains unclear.
