The US cryptocurrency regulation is finally facing the reality of "running out of time." The Clarity Act, currently under consideration in the Senate, is likely to stall until 2027 if it fails to pass by May 2026, due to subsequent political schedules. Why is this "deadline" so crucial? It goes beyond mere legality; it involves a fundamental financial question: "Whose is the yield?"
The issue at stake: the battle over yield and the essence of stablecoins.
The biggest point of contention in the Clarity Act is the prohibition of "passive yield" on stablecoin holdings. In other words, it prohibits mechanisms that grant interest simply for holding stablecoins, while allowing incentives (rewards) tied to payments and usage.
The reason this seemingly technical distinction is creating such a major conflict is simple: yield is the very essence of "value allocation" in finance.
In April 2026, it was reported that Brian Armstrong of Coinbase had shifted his stance to support the bill's passage following a compromise proposal. However, he initially strongly opposed this clause and even withdrew his support for the bill at one point. The company's stablecoin-related revenue is projected to reach approximately $1.35 billion in 2025, representing about 19% of its total revenue, meaning that yield restrictions would directly impact its revenue structure.
On the other hand, the banking industry takes the opposite stance. For banks, which want to prevent deposits from flowing into stablecoins, stricter regulations are a welcome "breakwater." The conflict between Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan and Armstrong of Coinbase symbolizes a "zero-sum game of interests" between old and new forces.
.png%3Ffm%3Dwebp&w=3840&q=75)
