A lot of people still imagine crypto lobbying as one industry pushing in one direction against Washington.
That was always too simple, and now it is becoming impossible to maintain.
Stay ahead in the crypto world – follow us on X for the latest updates, insights, and trends!🚀
The latest fight over the CLARITY Act shows that the biggest battle in U.S. crypto regulation is no longer just crypto versus regulators. Crypto versus crypto is here too, over which business model gets protected.
Why yield is the real fight
On Monday, crypto industry leaders attended a closed-door Capitol Hill session to review the stablecoin yield compromise text reached in principle the previous week by Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks.
The draft language, first reported by Eleanor Terrett, draws a clear structural line: digital asset service providers, including exchanges, brokers, and affiliated entities, are prohibited from offering yield directly or indirectly on stablecoin balances, or through any arrangement economically equivalent to bank interest.
The prohibition is explicitly designed to close structural workarounds through affiliates, making it broader than earlier drafts.
Coinbase told Senate offices it still could not support the language, the second time the company has helped derail progress over the same issue, after CEO Brian Armstrong publicly pulled support in January and prompted the Senate Banking Committee to postpone its markup the same morning.
The reason this matters so much to Coinbase is concrete: the company reported $355 million in USDC-related stablecoin revenue in the third quarter of 2025 alone, built substantially around distributing yield to users who hold the coin on its platform.
If the law narrows how exchanges can share yield with customers, that revenue is directly at risk, even if the broader stablecoin market keeps growing.
The banking lobby’s position, meanwhile, has been consistent throughout.
The American Bankers Association formally rejected a White House-brokered compromise in early March that would have allowed yield in limited peer-to-peer payment contexts, resetting negotiations entirely and pushing the final text closer to the bank position than anything the crypto industry had accepted.
Banks argue that exchanges paying users rewards that look and feel like interest on dollar balances is effectively deposit-taking without bank-style regulation, and that the GENIUS Act already created a loophole by restricting issuers but not their distribution partners.
Why Circle may not be the real loser
That helps explain why the market may have reacted too bluntly when the draft language leaked Monday evening.
Circle stock sold off far more sharply than Coinbase shares, but multiple analysts argued this reading has the relationship backwards.
10x Research founder Markus Thielen argued that the bill in its current form weakens Coinbase’s distribution-driven model more than it hurts Circle’s role as the issuer and infrastructure provider behind USDC, and that the setup “increasingly favors Circle on a relative basis.”
He noted that the two companies face a commercial renegotiation of their revenue-sharing arrangement in August, and that under a stricter federal regime, Circle gains meaningful leverage to push for improved terms.
Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan made an equally pointed observation from a different angle: Circle’s selloff looked overblown because stablecoin adoption has never primarily depended on passive yield in the first place.
Most users adopt stablecoins because they make it easier to move dollars, settle transactions, and access blockchain-based rails, not because they function like high-yield savings accounts.
And if the law reduces how much yield revenue Circle has to pass downstream to distribution partners, that could actually improve Circle’s own economics over time, potentially supporting a path to a valuation around $75 billion, roughly double current levels, if stablecoin adoption plays out as broadly projected.
The real divide inside crypto lobbying
Once you look at it that way, the political story becomes way clearer. The CLARITY Act debate is not revealing a unified crypto industry view. On the contrary.
It is exposing an actual collision between at least four competing sets of interests: exchanges that want to keep yield-driven user acquisition, stablecoin issuers who may benefit from a more tightly regulated market, traditional banks that fear deposit migration, and offshore rivals like Tether that are playing a different credibility game around reserve transparency and global scale.
That is why the backlash against Coinbase inside the industry has been unusually sharp. Reports of boycott calls and social media criticism are the visible surface layer, but the deeper issue is that other parts of the market increasingly view Coinbase’s position as the defense of one specific revenue model rather than the defense of the industry as a whole.
The closer crypto gets to real legislation, the harder it becomes to present major players as pulling in the same direction, because they are not.
What retail should take away
For retail users, the takeaway is not just that another crypto bill hit turbulence. That was somehow expectable anyway.
But it is that stablecoins have become important enough that narrow legal distinctions around the word “yield” can move stocks, fracture industry alliances, and reshape who captures value across the entire stack. That is a sign of maturity, not weakness, but it is indeed a messy kind of maturity.
The next phase of crypto regulation will not just draw a line between crypto and banks, but between crypto companies themselves, based on whether they make money by issuing the asset, distributing it, or holding the infrastructure underneath it.
In that sense, Coinbase’s latest stand may be revealed more than any Senate hearing. The real lobbying war in crypto is now happening inside the industry itself.
Crypto market researcher and external contributor at Kriptoworld
Wheel. Steam engine. Bitcoin.
📅 Published: March 27, 2026 • 🕓 Last updated: March 27, 2026
✉️ Contact: [email protected]
Disclosure:This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.
Kriptoworld.com accepts no liability for any errors in the articles or for any financial loss resulting from incorrect information.
