Introduction Regulators’ push to curb stablecoin yields under the CLARITY Act threatens to reroute capital away from fully regulated markets and toward offshoreIntroduction Regulators’ push to curb stablecoin yields under the CLARITY Act threatens to reroute capital away from fully regulated markets and toward offshore

CLARITY Act Could Ban Stablecoin Yields and Push Capital Offshore

Clarity Act Could Ban Stablecoin Yields And Push Capital Offshore

Introduction

Regulators’ push to curb stablecoin yields under the CLARITY Act threatens to reroute capital away from fully regulated markets and toward offshore or opaque financial structures. Industry executives warn that restricting compliant stablecoins from offering yields could sideline legitimate institutions while accelerating capital migration beyond U.S. oversight, complicating the country’s position in the global crypto ecosystem.

Key Takeaways

  • The CLARITY Act’s yield restrictions may drive compliant stablecoins offshore, undermining regulated financial channels.
  • Treating stablecoins strictly as cash rather than yield-bearing instruments creates incentives for capital to seek higher-yield opportunities outside the onshore framework.
  • Emerging on-chain yield strategies, including delta-neutral and synthetic structures, could flourish in regulatory gray areas, raising disclosure and oversight concerns.
  • Global competition is intensifying as other jurisdictions pursue yield-bearing digital instruments, potentially eroding U.S. competitiveness in crypto finance.

Tickers mentioned:

Sentiment: Bearish

Price impact: Negative. The proposed restrictions could depress onshore demand for compliant stablecoins and push yield-seeking capital abroad.

Trading idea (Not Financial Advice): Hold. Regulators’ actions create a watchlist for regulatory clarity and risk transfer to offshore structures.

Market context: The debate on stablecoin regulation sits at the intersection of monetary policy, banking capital, and crypto innovation, amid broader shifts toward yield-bearing digital assets worldwide.

Rewritten article body

The United States faces a pivotal choice as lawmakers weigh restrictions on stablecoin yields within the framework of the CLARITY Act. Industry participants contend that proposals to bar fully compliant stablecoins from offering interest could push a substantial amount of capital into offshore or opaque structures that operate outside conventional regulatory guardrails. Colin Butler, head of markets at Mega Matrix, argues that removing yield from compliant stablecoins would not fortify the American financial system; it would instead marginalize regulated institutions and redirect capital beyond U.S. oversight.

“There’s always going to be demand for yield,” Butler told Cointelegraph, noting that if compliant stablecoins cannot offer it, investors will gravitate toward offshore options or synthetic structures that fall outside the regulatory perimeter. The policy tension centers on balancing financial stability with the needs of market participants seeking efficient, regulated access to stable, dollar-denominated yields.

Under the GENIUS Act, payment stablecoins such as USDC must be fully backed by cash or short-term Treasuries and are prohibited from paying interest directly to holders. The framework treats stablecoins as digital cash rather than as traditional yield-bearing financial products. Butler maintains this creates a structural misalignment, especially when the three-month U.S. Treasury yields are hovering around 3.6% while ordinary savings accounts lag far behind.

He adds that the “competitive dynamic for banks isn’t stablecoins versus bank deposits,” but rather banks offering depositors only modest rates while banks retain the lion’s share of yields. If investors can earn 4% to 5% on stablecoin deposits via exchanges, compared with near-zero yields at traditional banks, capital reallocation appears rational—especially for yield-seeking institutions and individual investors alike.

Andrei Grachev, founding partner at Falcon Finance, warns that constraining onshore yield could create a vacuum that is rapidly filled by so‑called synthetic dollars—dollar-pegged instruments designed to maintain parity through structured trading strategies instead of one-to-one fiat reserves. “The real risk isn’t synthetics themselves—it’s unregulated synthetics operating without disclosure requirements,” Grachev said.

Butler pointed to Ethena’s USDe as a prominent example, noting that it generates yield through delta-neutral strategies involving crypto collateral and perpetual futures. Because such products fall outside the GENIUS Act’s definition of payment stablecoins, they occupy a regulatory gray area. “If Congress is trying to protect the banking system, they have inadvertently accelerated capital migration into structures that are largely offshore, less transparent, and completely outside U.S. regulatory jurisdiction,” he said.

Banks have argued that yield-bearing stablecoins could trigger deposit outflows and weaken their lending capacity. Grachev acknowledged that deposits are central to bank funding, but contended that portraying the issue as unfair competition misses a larger point. “Consumers already have access to money markets, T-bills, and high-yield savings accounts,” he noted, adding that stablecoins simply extend that access into crypto-native environments where traditional rails are less efficient.

Stablecoin yield bans could hurt US competitiveness

Beyond domestic concerns, the policy debate carries global implications. China’s digital yuan became interest-bearing earlier this year, and jurisdictions such as Singapore, Switzerland, and the UAE are actively developing frameworks for yield-bearing digital instruments. Butler warns that if the United States bans yield on compliant dollar stablecoins, it risks signaling to global capital that the U.S. offers only zero-yield coins, while other economies promote interest-bearing digital currencies—“a gift to Beijing,” he argued. Grachev argues the United States still has an opportunity to lead by establishing clear, auditable standards for compliant yield products. The current CLARITY Act draft, though, risks diluting this leadership by treating all yield as equivalent and failing to distinguish between transparent, regulated structures and opaque alternatives.

This article was originally published as CLARITY Act Could Ban Stablecoin Yields and Push Capital Offshore on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Global Crypto Leaders to Converge in Dubai for Historic 30th Edition of HODL

Global Crypto Leaders to Converge in Dubai for Historic 30th Edition of HODL

The 30th edition of the HODL (Formerly World Blockchain Summit), the world's longest-running Crypto & Web3 Summit series is set to return to Dubai.
Share
Crypto Breaking News2025/06/17 20:16
Buterin pushes Layer 2 interoperability as cornerstone of Ethereum’s future

Buterin pushes Layer 2 interoperability as cornerstone of Ethereum’s future

Ethereum founder, Vitalik Buterin, has unveiled new goals for the Ethereum blockchain today at the Japan Developer Conference. The plan lays out short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals touching on L2 interoperability and faster responsiveness among others. In terms of technology, he said again that he is sure that Layer 2 options are the best way […]
Share
Cryptopolitan2025/09/18 01:15
Chinese Bitcoin Hardware Titans Control 95% of Market, Now Coming to America to Dodge Trump Tariff War

Chinese Bitcoin Hardware Titans Control 95% of Market, Now Coming to America to Dodge Trump Tariff War

Three of China’s largest Bitcoin hardware manufacturers are establishing production facilities in the United States as President Donald Trump’s tariff policies reshape the cryptocurrency industry. The three industry leaders, Bitmain, Canaan, and MicroBT, collectively control over 90% of the global mining rig market. These companies are the architects of Bitcoin’s physical infrastructure, manufacturing the specialized ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) machines that form the backbone of the world’s most valuable cryptocurrency network. Every Bitcoin mined globally likely passes through hardware bearing Chinese engineering fingerprints. 95% Market Control Sparks “Digital Dependency Trap” and Security Risks According to a June 18 Reuters report, these Bitcoin mining giants are establishing U.S. operations to circumvent potential tariffs. However, critics have raised security concerns about Chinese involvement in sectors spanning semiconductor manufacturing and energy infrastructure. Guang Yang, chief technology officer at crypto technology provider Conflux Network, described the situation as extending beyond trade policy. “The U.S.-China trade war goes beyond tariffs,” Yang stated. “It’s a strategic pivot toward ‘politically acceptable’ hardware sources.” Bitmain, the largest of the three companies by revenue, initiated U.S. production of mining equipment in December , one month after Trump’s presidential election victory. Canaan began trial production in the United States on April 2 to avoid tariffs following Trump’s announcement of new trade levies. One of the largest manufacturers of #bitcoin mining machines, Canaan, has set up a base of operations outside of China. CEO Zhang says, Kazakhstan is essential to "expanding after-sales geographical coverage and providing […] support growing international customer base" pic.twitter.com/7D5Xh2ici5 — Documenting ₿itcoin 📄 (@DocumentingBTC) June 23, 2021 Third-ranked MicroBT announced in a statement that it is “actively implementing a localization strategy in the U.S.” to “avoid the impact of tariffs.” $11.9B by 2028: The Market These Giants Are Fighting for According to Frost & Sullivan’s “2024 Global Blockchain Hardware Industry White Paper,” the ASIC-based Bitcoin mining hardware market demonstrates substantial consolidation. When measured by computing power sold, these three Chinese companies command 95.4% of the global market share. The Bitcoin ecosystem encompasses five primary segments: hardware supply, mining farm operations, mining pool management, trading platforms, and payment processing services. Hardware manufacturers like Canaan, the first Bitcoin mining company to go public and the second-largest by computing power , focus exclusively on integrated circuit (IC) design, manufacturing, and equipment sales. Industry analysts project continued sector expansion, with the market expected to reach $11.9 billion by 2028, representing a compound annual growth rate of 15.3%, contingent on Bitcoin’s continued price appreciation driven by supply scarcity. Source: Frost & Sullivan China’s Historical Bitcoin Mining Advantage Understanding today’s migration requires examining how China achieved such overwhelming market control in the first place. The foundation was laid during the historic 2017 Bitcoin boom, when three key factors aligned to create Chinese mining supremacy. During the early expansion phase, Chinese officials recognized cryptocurrency mining as a profitable venture that attracted substantial foreign investment. Consequently, authorities initially overlooked the mining sector while simultaneously restricting Bitcoin trading and initial coin offerings. Hydro-power plants go on sale in China since #Bitcoin mining crackdown has reduced demand for electricity. – South China Morning Post pic.twitter.com/QKEbUzWN4g — Bitcoin Archive (@BTC_Archive) June 30, 2021 China’s extensive hydroelectric infrastructure further strengthened the country’s mining operations, providing the cheap energy essential for profitable Bitcoin production. Does Chinese Hardware Control America’s Bitcoin Network? While the United States leads global Bitcoin mining operations with over 38% of total network activity , American miners depend almost entirely on Chinese-manufactured equipment. America Leads Bitcoin Mining Operation/ Source: Bitbo This creates what security analysts describe as a “digital dependency trap,” a scenario where America’s cryptocurrency infrastructure relies fundamentally on hardware produced by its primary economic rival. Guang Yang, Conflux Network’s chief technology officer, frames this dependency in geopolitical terms that extend far beyond trade economics . “The U.S.-China trade war goes beyond tariffs,” Yang explains. “It’s a strategic pivot toward ‘politically acceptable’ hardware sources.” His assessment reflects growing concerns within the cryptocurrency community about supply chain vulnerabilities that could impact national economic security.
Share
CryptoNews2025/06/19 04:26