bankingvscrypto

The latest White House meeting on February 10, 2026, aimed at resolving the legislative stalemate over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act), ended without a breakthrough as banking representatives maintained their refusal to compromise on stablecoin rewards.
Meeting Breakdown & Deadlock
Negotiators from the crypto industry arrived prepared to discuss a potential legislative deal regarding stablecoin yields. However, major banking trade groups—including the American Bankers Association (ABA), Bank Policy Institute (BPI), and Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)—doubled down on their demands for a total ban on such rewards.
Bankers' Stance: Banks argue that yield-bearing stablecoins compete directly with traditional deposits, potentially siphoning away $6.6 trillion and threatening the "safety and soundness" of local lending. They circulated a "principles document" reinforcing their hardline opposition to any rewards activity.
Crypto Industry Stance: Executives from Coinbase, Ripple, and Circle contend that rewards are essential for competition and that a ban would be anti-competitive, potentially pushing innovation offshore.
White House Role: Led by crypto policy adviser Patrick Witt, the administration has pressured both sides to reach a deal by the end of February 2026 to ensure the bill can move forward in the Senate before midterm election cycles begin.
Key Points of Contention
The impasse primarily revolves around the treatment of interest-like payments on dollar-pegged stablecoins. While the GENIUS Act (signed in July 2025) barred direct interest from issuers, it left a loophole for third-party platforms like Coinbase to offer rewards, which banks now seek to close entirely.

Participants in the February 2026 Meetings
The White House has transitioned from general trade group summits to direct institutional involvement.
Banking Sector: Representatives from JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.
Crypto Sector: Leadership from Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, and the Blockchain Association.
Government Officials: White House crypto policy council and reportedly incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh.
#CLARITYAct #CryptoRegulation #USTechFundFlows #BankingVsCrypto #WhiteHouseCrypto

The Trump administration's push to make the U.S. the "crypto capital of the world" hit another roadblock this week. A high-stakes White House meeting on February 3, 2026, between major U.S. banks and cryptocurrency firms ended without an agreement, highlighting ongoing divisions that are stalling key digital-asset legislation. The gathering, led by President Trump's crypto adviser Patrick Witt, focused on resolving disputes over stablecoin rewards in proposed market structure bills, but no progress was made.

At the heart of the conflict is whether stablecoins—digital assets pegged to fiat currencies like the USD—should offer yields or interest to users. Banks are advocating for language in the bill that would prohibit these rewards, arguing it protects their traditional deposit systems. Crypto companies, on the other hand, insist that such yields are essential for attracting customers and fostering competition, warning that bans would stifle innovation. Despite the impasse, White House officials urged both sides to reach a compromise by the end of February, emphasizing the need for swift action on bills like the CLARITY Act to clarify regulations for digital assets.
This tension isn't new. Earlier in January 2026, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong encountered resistance from top bankers, who dismissed crypto's push for regulatory parity. The Senate Agriculture Committee has advanced its own crypto framework without full bipartisan support, but broader Senate action remains delayed amid these industry negotiations.
For investors, this ongoing stalemate could mean continued uncertainty in the crypto market, potentially leading to volatility in assets like Bitcoin, which recently dipped below $70,000 amid broader economic pressures. However, a resolution could unlock mainstream adoption, integrating stablecoins more deeply into the financial system and supporting U.S. leadership in digital assets. With Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasizing no government bailouts for crypto, the pressure is on for private sector compromises.
Stay informed as these developments unfold—crypto's regulatory future in the U.S. is at a critical juncture.
#crypto #TRUMP #Stablecoins #Binance #BankingVsCrypto

In a rare move aimed at breaking a long-running policy deadlock, the White House is preparing to host senior executives from major banks and leading cryptocurrency companies to negotiate a compromise on U.S. digital asset legislation. The meeting signals growing urgency within the administration to create a unified regulatory framework for crypto, particularly as stablecoins and blockchain-based financial products continue to gain mainstream traction.
For years, Washington has struggled to balance innovation with financial stability. Lawmakers face pressure from two powerful camps: traditional banks that fear disruption to the deposit-based system, and crypto companies that argue innovation is being stifled by outdated rules and regulatory uncertainty. By bringing both sides to the same table, the White House hopes to find common ground that can unlock progress on stalled legislation.
At the heart of the dispute lies the regulation of stablecoins — digital tokens typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. Crypto firms view stablecoins as the backbone of the digital economy, enabling fast payments, decentralized finance, and global transfers. Many argue that allowing yield-bearing stablecoins is essential to compete with banks and attract users. Banks, however, warn that widespread adoption of such products could drain deposits from the traditional financial system, potentially weakening liquidity and increasing systemic risk.
The proposed legislation, which has moved unevenly through Congress, aims to clarify which regulators oversee different types of digital assets, establish rules for stablecoin issuers, and define consumer protection standards. While the House of Representatives has shown momentum, divisions in the Senate — including within party lines — have slowed progress. Some lawmakers worry the bill is too favorable to crypto firms, while others argue it still leans heavily toward protecting legacy financial institutions.
The White House meeting reflects a broader strategic shift. Rather than letting industry groups and lawmakers clash in public, the administration appears intent on playing mediator. Officials believe a negotiated compromise could preserve financial stability while ensuring the U.S. does not fall behind other jurisdictions that have already implemented clearer crypto regulations.
For the crypto industry, the stakes are high. Regulatory clarity could unlock institutional investment, encourage innovation, and keep blockchain development anchored in the United States. Prolonged uncertainty, on the other hand, risks pushing companies and talent offshore to more crypto-friendly regions.
Banks also have much to gain — and lose. A clear framework could allow them to participate more actively in digital asset markets, offering custody, payments, and tokenized products within defined rules. But a poorly balanced compromise could reshape the competitive landscape in ways that threaten traditional revenue models.
Ultimately, this White House-led dialogue may determine whether the U.S. finally establishes a coherent crypto policy or remains mired in regulatory fragmentation. While a single meeting will not resolve every issue, it represents one of the most concrete steps yet toward aligning innovation, regulation, and economic stability in the digital age.
If successful, the talks could mark a turning point for U.S. crypto legislation — one that reshapes the future of finance far beyond Washington.
#CryptoNews #Stablecoins #BlockchainPolicy #CryptoRegulation #BankingVsCrypto