Published: February 10, 2026
On February 10, 2026, senior White House economic officials hosted a high-level, closed-door meeting with executives from the largest U.S. banks, stablecoin issuers and leading crypto platforms to resolve one of the most contentious sticking points delaying comprehensive federal crypto legislation: whether (and how) stablecoin issuers can offer yield or rewards to holders.
The discussion — described by multiple attendees as “productive but difficult” — is widely seen as the final major hurdle before the long-stalled market-structure bill (sometimes referred to in the press as a CLARITY-style framework) can advance to a full Senate vote. At stake is whether stablecoins can continue to compete with bank deposits by paying interest-like returns, or whether new rules will force issuers to pivot to non-yield models (activity bonuses, governance tokens, etc.). This article recaps what is publicly known about the meeting, the core positions of each side, likely compromises, and what the outcome could mean for stablecoin users, DeFi protocols, exchanges and the broader crypto market in 2026.
What Happened at the February 10 White House Stablecoin Yield Meeting?
According to statements from participants and background reporting:
- The meeting was convened by the National Economic Council (NEC) and included representatives from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve staff, and senior advisors to the President.
- On the industry side: executives from Circle (USDC), Paxos, Coinbase, Ripple (RLUSD), Tether (via counsel), and at least two major traditional banks (JPMorgan and Bank of America confirmed attendance).
- Duration: approximately 3.5 hours, with breakout sessions on legal definitions, consumer-protection concerns, and financial-stability implications.
- No final agreement was reached, but several attendees described the tone as “more constructive than previous attempts” and said small working groups will continue discussions this month.
The principal goal was to find common ground on stablecoin “rewards” so that the market-structure bill — which has already cleared the House and advanced through the Senate Agriculture Committee — can move forward without being held hostage by the yield debate.
Core Positions: Banks vs Crypto Issuers
The central disagreement is whether stablecoin yields constitute interest that should be restricted to banks, or whether they are permissible incentives that do not threaten deposit-taking.
| Stakeholder | Main Position | Key Arguments | Desired Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional Banks | Restrict or ban yield/rewards on stablecoins | Yield-bearing stablecoins act like uninsured deposits → deposit flight risk, financial stability threat | Stablecoins limited to non-interest-bearing “payment tokens” |
| Stablecoin Issuers & Crypto Platforms | Allow market-based rewards (yield, governance tokens, rebates) | Rewards are essential for competition & user adoption; banning them hands banks a monopoly on interest | Clear safe-harbor rules that permit compliant yield products |
| White House / Regulators | Seek middle ground that protects consumers & stability | Want innovation but fear systemic risk if stablecoins become “shadow deposits” | Compromise that allows limited, regulated rewards while preserving bank primacy |
Why Stablecoin Yields Became the Blocking Issue
Under current U.S. law:
- Banks can offer interest on deposits (FDIC-insured up to $250k)
- Stablecoin issuers are generally treated as money transmitters or trust companies → cannot offer “interest” without a banking charter
- Many issuers have worked around this via “rewards” programs (governance tokens, staking yields, fee rebates) — prompting accusations of regulatory arbitrage
The market-structure bill aims to create a dual regime (SEC for tokenized securities, CFTC for commodity-like tokens), but Democrats and some Republicans insist that stablecoin yield rules must be clarified first — otherwise the legislation risks creating a parallel banking system outside FDIC oversight.
Most Likely Outcomes & Market Implications
Three plausible scenarios for the next 3–6 months:
- Compromise Safe Harbor (45–55% probability)
Yield permitted up to a low cap (e.g. Fed funds rate – 50 bps) with strict reserve, audit and AML requirements → most issuers adjust existing programs; DeFi lending protocols remain largely unaffected. - Hard Restriction / Ban (25–35% probability)
Yield/rewards classified as interest → issuers pivot to non-yield incentives (rebates, governance rights); banks gain competitive advantage on deposit substitutes. - Stalemate & Incremental Bills (15–25% probability)
No near-term resolution → market-structure bill stalls or passes without stablecoin title; issuers continue in regulatory gray zone; offshore platforms capture more volume.
Short-term price impact on major stablecoins (USDC, USDT, DAI, PYUSD, RLUSD) is likely muted unless a hard ban emerges — issuers would simply rebrand rewards as something else. Longer-term winners/losers:
- Winners if compromise: Circle, Paxos, Ripple (can keep compliant yield products)
- Winners if ban: Traditional banks & tokenized bank deposits
- Losers either way: Pure DeFi lending protocols that rely on yield-bearing collateral
Trading & Positioning Considerations on Tapbit – February 2026
- Sign Up on Tapbit (0% maker fees)
- Deposit USDT or JPY via bank transfer / P2P
- Regulatory momentum play: Long major stablecoin pairs (USDC/USDT) if compromise language leaks
- Risk-off hedge: Long XAU/USDT perpetuals or BTC/USDT if talks break down
- Risk control: Max 1–2% account risk per trade; isolated margin; trailing stops below recent lows
FAQs – White House Stablecoin Yield Meeting (Feb 10, 2026)
What was the main goal of the February 10 meeting?
To resolve whether stablecoin issuers can offer yield/rewards so the broader market-structure bill can advance without being blocked by the stablecoin title.
Why do banks want to restrict stablecoin yields?
They argue yield-bearing stablecoins act like uninsured deposits → risk of deposit flight and financial instability if issuers face runs without FDIC protection.
Will stablecoin yields be banned after this meeting?
Unlikely in absolute terms. Most observers expect a compromise (low-cap yield with strict rules) rather than an outright ban — though nothing is finalized yet.
How could this affect USDC, USDT or RLUSD holders?
Short-term impact likely limited unless a hard ban emerges. Issuers would pivot to non-yield incentives (rebates, governance rights) — core peg stability and utility remain intact.
Conclusion & What to Watch Next
The February 10, 2026 White House stablecoin-yield meeting was a critical — if inconclusive — step toward breaking the logjam that has delayed comprehensive U.S. crypto market-structure legislation for more than a year. While no final agreement was reached, the fact that banks and crypto issuers sat in the same room signals that both sides recognize the status quo (regulatory uncertainty + gray-zone yields) is unsustainable.
The most probable near-term path is a limited safe-harbor compromise that allows regulated yield products while preserving bank primacy on deposit-taking — a win for issuers like Circle and Paxos, neutral for most DeFi protocols, and manageable for retail users. Tapbit offers traders clean ways to position around U.S. regulatory developments: 0% maker fees on USDC/USDT, BTC/USDT & major stablecoin pairs, deep liquidity, up to 125x leverage on perpetuals (use conservatively), staking/yield options, and instant fiat ramps. Key follow-up events: working-group updates this month, Senate Banking Committee markup revival (target March–April), any leaked compromise language, ETF flow reaction, and February macro data (jobs Feb 7, CPI Feb 10–14) — the outcome of these talks remains one of the highest-impact near-term catalysts for the U.S. crypto market in 2026.
Trade stablecoins & regulatory momentum on Tapbit:
- Sign Up on Tapbit (0% maker fees)
- Login & Deposit JPY/USDT
- Live USDC/USDT, BTC/USDT & Major Pairs Charts
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrency trading involves significant risk of loss. Prices are highly volatile and can change rapidly. Regulatory outcomes and meeting conclusions are uncertain and subject to change. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal or financial advice. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) and consult qualified professionals before making decisions.
