The White House is holding a second closed-door session on the CLARITY Act to break a stalemate over whether stablecoins can offer yield, after an initial Feb 2 meeting ended without agreement.

The yield question is pivotal because banks argue interest-bearing stablecoins resemble deposits and could accelerate outflows, while crypto firms say rewards are essential for user retention and liquidity. Europe’s MiCA and several Asian regimes have signaled limits on interest-like features, highlighting regulatory divergence and potential arbitrage if the U.S. remains undecided. Reports indicate the administration wants joint compromise language from banking associations and crypto trade groups by late February to restart the bill’s path, with some coverage suggesting yield restrictions could be the trade-off for progress.

This debate reflects a broader shift toward payment‑first stablecoin models and prudential oversight, with banks seeking parity protections and crypto pushing for product flexibility. The outcome will shape how stablecoin issuers fund operations, compete with money funds and banks, and distribute on-chain incentives. A restrictive U.S. stance would likely push reward features into bank‑chartered entities or offshore products, while a permissive approach could invite tighter prudential rules to address run and liquidity risks.

If a deal emerges, expect a narrow, payments-focused framework in the near term, with yield features either ring‑fenced under banking rules or deferred.