The cryptocurrency market structure bill currently being advanced by the US Congress has recently stalled, with the main point of contention centered on whether stablecoins should be allowed to generate yields. Banking groups are concerned that without a clear regulatory framework, interest-bearing stablecoins could disrupt traditional deposit business models; meanwhile, crypto firms worry that overly stringent restrictions will force innovation to flow to regions with more lenient regulations. This deadlock is expected to keep the timeline and specific scope of the bill's passage ambiguous until 2026.
Currently, regulatory responsibilities remain unclear, with disputes over the jurisdictional boundaries of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regarding crypto assets. This ambiguity directly affects the listing standards for trading platforms, information disclosure requirements, and asset custody arrangements, causing compliance costs in the industry to continue rising.
Exchanges have delayed the launch of new products due to uncertainty over token classification standards, while stablecoin issuers and their partner banks have also paused yield plans, reserve structure optimizations, and distribution strategy adjustments, leading to an overall conservative trend. The market is eager for regulatory bodies to clarify their respective responsibilities to stabilize industry expectations.
Key future observation points include whether banking groups will soften their stance on interest-bearing stablecoins, whether the White House will push for a more focused compromise, and whether congressional committees can restart bipartisan negotiations and propose a streamlined version of the bill. Disputes over the regulation of decentralized finance (DeFi News) and the jurisdiction of the SEC and CFTC remain, but the issue of stablecoin yields has become the most prominent obstacle.
Currently, the White House has proposed a compromise, with Democrats questioning the true bipartisan nature of the existing draft, while Republicans continue to push forward at the committee level. Although all parties express a willingness to negotiate, significant differences remain on core terms, making breakthroughs unlikely in the short term.