Connect with us

Crypto World

Clarity Act Fails March 1 Deadline as Stablecoin Yield Dispute Stalls Progress

Published

on

Clarity Act Fails March 1 Deadline as Stablecoin Yield Dispute Stalls Progress

The White House’s self-imposed deadline for banks and crypto to resolve their stablecoin standoff has come and gone.

With no deal in sight, trillions in institutional capital now hang in the balance.

Why it matters:

  • Stablecoin legislation is widely seen as the gateway to mainstream crypto adoption in the US.
  • Without it, regulatory uncertainty persists, enforcement risk rises, and innovation continues migrating to friendlier jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.

The details:

  • The March 1 deadline set by White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt has passed without a compromise on stablecoin yield.
  • Crypto firms are pushing for the legal right to offer regulated rewards on stablecoins like USDC.
  • Meanwhile, banks, fearing deposit flight if users chase 4–5% stablecoin returns over 0.01% savings rates, are lobbying for strict limits or an outright ban.
  • A banking source told Crypto In America that while there’s broad agreement stablecoin balances shouldn’t earn direct interest, crypto firms are still attempting to engineer yield through “membership programs, rewards, and staking” — a workaround banks say is holding up the deal.
  • The OCC may have bolstered the banks’ position, signaling in its latest GENIUS Act rulemaking that stablecoin rewards could face tighter limits than the crypto industry anticipated.

The big picture:

  • Senate Banking Committee markup is now expected in mid-to-late March, with breakout negotiations penciled in for April and a soft July deadline before election-year paralysis sets in.
  • If no compromise is reached, the SEC and OCC could resort to enforcement actions to fill the policy vacuum.
  • Such a move could delay what JPMorgan has projected could be a massive institutional inflow wave by late 2026.

The post Clarity Act Fails March 1 Deadline as Stablecoin Yield Dispute Stalls Progress appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Judge Hands Win to Uniswap in Class Action Over Scams

Published

on

Judge Hands Win to Uniswap in Class Action Over Scams

Uniswap Labs and founder Hayden Adams have won a class action lawsuit that sought to hold them liable for scam cryptocurrencies traded on its platform, ending a four-year legal saga.

Manhattan federal judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed a suit against Uniswap on Monday with prejudice, saying the class group can’t hold Uniswap liable for the misconduct of unknown third-party token issuers.

It was the class group’s second attempt to sue Uniswap, which amended their complaint in May to focus on claims of state-level consumer protection violations, arguing that Uniswap allowed “rug pulls and pump and dump schemes,” according to Judge Polk Failla’s order.

The group, led by Nessa Risley, first sued Uniswap, Adams and venture firms Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures in April 2022. Their lawsuit was dismissed in August 2023, a decision that was later upheld on appeal.

Advertisement

Uniswap’s Adams posted on X that the ruling was a “good, sensible outcome” that sets a new legal precedent.

Source: Hayden Adams

“If you write open source smart contract code, and the code is used by scammers, the scammers are liable, not the open source devs,” he added.

Class group failed to claim that Uniswap helped with fraud

In her latest opinion, Judge Polk Failla said the class group had failed to adequately allege that Uniswap “had knowledge of the fraud and substantially assisted in its commission.”

She added that “merely creating an environment where fraud could exist is not the same as affirmatively assisting in its perpetration.”

Related: New York judge blocks Binance bid to force US crypto claims into arbitration

Advertisement

“No matter how they try to dress up their allegations, Plaintiffs are basically alleging that Defendants substantially assisted fraud by providing ordinary services that anyone could use for lawful purposes, but that some used for unlawful purposes,” the judge wrote.

“Such an argument fails for the same reasons why a bank does not substantially assist a money launderer who washes his cash through the bank’s accounts, and why WhatsApp does not substantially assist a drug dealer who coordinates a sale on its messaging service: Simply providing the platform on which a fraud takes place is not the same as substantially assisting that fraud,” she added.

Big questions: Should you sell your Bitcoin for nickels for a 43% profit?