CLARITY Act is turning into a proxy war over who pays Americans for holding “digital dollars”


The fight over CLARITY has always been sold as a battle for rules, a way to finally give the U.S. crypto market a clean lane to run in.

That story still matters. The past week made something else clearer: the legislation is becoming a proxy war over who gets to pay Americans for holding digital dollars.

On Feb. 9, CryptoSlate wrote that a Feb. 10 White House meeting could be the moment CLARITY unfreezes, with stablecoin rewards likely to be the price of progress.

White House meeting could unfreeze the crypto CLARITY Act this week, but crypto rewards likely to be the price
Related Reading

White House meeting could unfreeze the crypto CLARITY Act this week, but crypto rewards likely to be the price

A high-stakes meeting between the White House and banking giants may trade stablecoin yield for federal regulation.

Feb 9, 2026 · Liam ‘Akiba’ Wright

The piece treated the session as a hinge point, the kind of closed-door negotiation where one side finally gives the other a path to say yes.

That meeting has now happened. The readout points to a familiar stalemate.

Post-meeting banks are reluctant to engage in dealmaking, with the conversation still centered on stablecoin rewards and yield.

The mood reads like two groups speaking past each other. One side treats rewards as innovation; the other treats them as a threat to deposits.

The human tension is palpable here because it involves people’s cash habits, not merely crypto ideology.

It is about the single mom who keeps a few thousand dollars parked somewhere safe and wants it to earn something. It is also about the small business owner who looks at checking account rates and wonders why the “savings” part rarely shows up.

The public record still lacks compromise language, and the calendar still lacks a markup date.

That keeps Section 404 in the center of the story. It also keeps the pressure on the same point: stablecoin yield.

Will crypto rewards survive upcoming CLARITY law? A plain-English guide to Section 404Will crypto rewards survive upcoming CLARITY law? A plain-English guide to Section 404
Related Reading

Will crypto rewards survive upcoming CLARITY law? A plain-English guide to Section 404

Under Section 404, the same stablecoin reward can look lawful or risky depending on whether it is framed as interest, a perk, a rebate, or a loyalty benefit.

Jan 25, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

Markets and lobbyists can live with uncertainty. They struggle with silence.

Silence means more private drafts, more closed-door negotiating, and more time for the coalition to fray.

Then came a second tell. On Feb. 12, Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott put out a fresh committee statement tied to a hearing with the SEC chair, framing digital assets alongside capital formation and a path forward.

The release does not change CLARITY text on its own. It does show political stage lighting.

The committee keeps rehearsing the speech it wants to give when the markup finally lands.

In Washington, messaging acts like an early version of math: leaders message what they believe they can eventually count votes for.

Outside the Capitol, another shift is happening. The debate is leaking out of crypto press and into mainstream finance commentary, where the framing is turning into a banks-versus-savers narrative.

Once a policy fight gets a simple moral story, the pressure rises on everyone to pick a side.

This matters for CLARITY because bills move when coalitions grow.

Crypto firms can lobby, banks can lobby, and broad public sentiment can change what lawmakers feel safe doing.

A narrative that paints banks as blocking competition can push negotiators toward compromise language that still protects safety while allowing some form of rewards.

A fourth change lives in the weeds until you see what it implies. Senate Agriculture staff have a draft focused on digital commodity intermediaries, and it cross-references the “Digital Asset Market Clarity Act” in definitions and other structure.

That suggests committees are building interoperable statutory language even while Banking’s track stays jammed.

In practice, that raises the odds CLARITY ends up as part of a stitched package, with pieces moving on parallel tracks until leadership decides what can be merged and when.

When the White House meeting ends and the yield fight stays

Crypto firms want certainty, banks want guardrails, and the White House wants a deliverable that looks like stability and competitiveness.

What changed last week is the lack of anything you can point to in public.

There is no compromise text circulating with clear language on stablecoin rewards, and there is no announced markup date that forces negotiators to show their work.

Banks are unwilling to cut deals, which has held stablecoin yields at the center of the tension.

That keeps Section 404 as the live wire. It matters because yield is the part normal people understand fastest.

We may glaze over jurisdiction fights, but we lean in when the question becomes whether dollars can earn more than dust.

The White House setting also matters. A session there signals the issue has moved from committee staff trench warfare to a broader political negotiation, where reputations and alliances get priced in.

When that kind of meeting ends without a visible step forward, the sticking point stays hard. The next proof point becomes a date on the calendar.

A markup date is a public commitment, and it forces people to put language on paper and defend it.

Senate Banking keeps the narrative runway lit

The most meaningful political signal since CryptoSlate’s last reporting is the committee’s choice to keep talking in public about digital assets and growth.

Chairman Scott tied digital assets to capital formation and a path forward, in the context of a hearing with the SEC chair.

That matters because lawmakers rarely spend political oxygen on themes they plan to abandon.

CryptoSlate Daily Brief

Daily signals, zero noise.

Market-moving headlines and context delivered every morning in one tight read.