Stablecoin Shenanigans: White House Fails to Tame Crypto Clowns

by

In the dimly lit chambers of the White House, where shadows dance and bureaucrats whisper, a gathering of the financial elite and crypto conjurers convened to untangle the Gordian knot of stablecoin rewards. Alas, the meeting, as productive as a nose without a face, ended in a stalemate, leaving both sides as satisfied as a man with a sieve for a hat. Crypto In America’s own Eleanor Terrett, ever the vigilant scribe, reported that the session was “productive,” a word as hollow as a politician’s promise.

The follow-up conclave, a more intimate affair than its predecessor, focused on the most explosive issue in the Crypto Clarity Act saga: whether crypto firms may dangle “rewards” before stablecoin users like a carrot before a particularly dim-witted donkey. The White House, with all the urgency of a tortoise at a sprint, urged both parties to strike a deal by March 1. Yet, whether another such gathering will occur before the month’s end remains as uncertain as the plot of a Gogol novel.

The Great Stablecoin Farce

Terrett revealed that the banking cabal arrived armed with a document titled “Yield and Interest Prohibition Principles,” a manifesto as rigid as a Prussian drill sergeant. It declared stablecoins to be mere payment instruments, fit only for the mundane task of transferring funds, and demanded a ban on rewards with the fervor of a Puritan at a carnival. “No person may provide any form of financial or non-financial consideration to a payment stablecoin holder,” it proclaimed, as if rewards were the root of all evil, second only to unbridled imagination.

The document, a masterpiece of bureaucratic pedantry, called for regulator enforcement, civil penalties, and marketing rules so strict they would make a Victorian schoolteacher blush. Even a slight concession-the inclusion of “any proposed exemptions”-was met with the enthusiasm of a man handed a single pea for dinner. Banks, it seems, are as willing to compromise as a cat is to share its prey.

The heart of the dispute lies in the definition of “permissible activities,” a phrase as vague as a foggy morning in St. Petersburg. Crypto firms wish to paint it broadly, while banks seek to confine it like a caged bird. Is a reward an incentive for payment activity, or is it a deposit in disguise, threatening the very foundations of traditional banking? The answer, like the nose of Major Kovalyov, remains elusive.

Ripple’s Stuart Alderoty, ever the optimist, declared via X (formerly known as the platform where people argue about nothing): “Compromise is in the air.” Dan Spuller of the Blockchain Association, however, noted that banks arrived with “broad prohibitive principles,” a stance as unyielding as a Gogol protagonist’s delusions.

The meeting, led by Patrick Witt, the Crypto Council’s executive director, included a cast of characters worthy of a Gogol satire: Coinbase’s Paul Grewal, a16z’s Miles Jennings, and representatives from Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and other financial behemoths. Yet, despite the star-studded lineup, the only thing accomplished was the passage of time.

Summer Mersinger of the Blockchain Association, ever the diplomat, praised the “continued, meaningful momentum,” a phrase as meaningful as a sneeze in a hurricane. The White House, it seems, is content to let the clock tick, applying time pressure rather than dictating terms. The race is on to define “permissible activities” in a way that satisfies both sides, a task as likely as finding a rational character in Dead Souls.

As of press time, the total crypto market cap stood at $2.26 trillion, a number as impressive as it is irrelevant to the ongoing farce.

Total Crypto Market Cap

Read More

2026-02-11 13:21