According to U.S. media reports, Coinbase has once again opposed a compromise version of the Senate’s crypto market structure bill. The main source of disagreement is the language surrounding stablecoin yield — the very issue that had already become one of the key reasons the initiative previously lost momentum.
As Punchbowl News reports, Coinbase representatives met with senators on Monday and expressed dissatisfaction with the updated version of the bill. The new draft would impose restrictions on third parties, including crypto exchanges and other platforms, from offering yield on stablecoins. This wording is being viewed as an attempt to accommodate the banking sector, which fears stronger competition from digital assets and a possible shift of customer funds away from the traditional financial systеm.
Why Coinbase’s Position Matters
Coinbase’s objections could seriously affect the future of the bill. The company is considered one of the most influential representatives of the crypto industry in Washington, and its opinion carries real weight in negotiations of this kind. Earlier, in January, Coinbase’s refusal to support a previous version of the proposal came shortly before the Senate Banking Committee postponed further consideration of the bill indefinitely.
That is why Coinbase’s current response is being seen as an important political and industry signal. If one of the largest crypto companies in the United States is not prepared to support the compromise version, it could once again complicate the bill’s path forward and prolong negotiations between the parties involved.
The Main Flashpoint Is Stablecoin Yield
The question of stablecoin yield remains the central fault line throughout the entire legislative process. Banking lobby groups argue that allowing exchanges or other third-party platforms to pay yield to users would effectively create a workaround to existing restrictions. Their position is based on the view that the GENIUS Act already prohibits stablecoin issuers from directly offering yield, and that permitting a similar practice through intermediaries would undermine the logic of the regulation itself.
In addition, banking representatives fear that such products could accelerate deposit outflows from the traditional banking systеm. If users are able to earn yield on digital dollar-denominated assets through crypto platforms, banks believe this could intensify pressure on conventional financial institutions and create additional risks for the deposit market structure.
The Crypto Industry Says Banks Are Exaggerating the Risk
Representatives of the crypto sector, by contrast, argue that the banks’ concerns are largely overstated. In their view, the issue is less about protecting financial stability and more about trying to limit competition from new digital financial tools. Crypto lobbyists believe that banning stablecoin yield through exchanges could significantly restrict market development and reduce users’ options.
From this perspective, the dispute over stablecoins goes far beyond a single technical amendment. In reality, it reflects a broader clash between the traditional banking systеm and the crypto industry, which continues to fight for the right to build its own financial models within a regulated U.S. environment.
Negotiations Continue, but No Compromise Has Been Reached Yet
According to available reports, Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks are currently playing an active role in trying to find a new compromise. They are involved in efforts to develop language that could be acceptable to both the crypto industry and the banking sector. However, despite continued discussions, no final resolution on the disputed provision has been reached so far.
It is also reported that the White House has already organized at least three meetings between representatives of both sides in an effort to help them reach an agreement. Even with that level of involvement, however, the conflict over stablecoin yield language remains unresolved.
The Senate Is Rushing to Pass the Bill Before the Elections
Republicans in the Senate continue to insist that the bill must be passed before the midterm elections. In their view, if the balance of power in Congress shifts after the elections, the initiative could lose its current momentum and the progress made so far could effectively be reset. That is why supporters of the proposal are trying not to let the negotiations drag on and are still hoping to reach a workable compromise in the near term.
Senator Cynthia Lummis said this week that it is especially important to preserve the possibility of a bipartisan agreement. In her words, the opportunity to move the legislation forward should not be missed, because further political uncertainty could put the future of the reform itself into question.
What This Dispute Means for the Market
The situation surrounding Coinbase and the new compromise proposal shows that crypto regulation in the United States remains a difficult and politically sensitive issue. Even when the parties appear to be moving toward an agreement, specific wording — especially on stablecoins and yield — can still slow down the entire process once again.
For the market, this means that the legislative framework for the crypto industry in the United States is still far from settled. And the debate over stablecoin yield, judging by everything that has unfolded so far, remains one of the most painful and most fundamental issues in the negotiations between crypto businesses, banks, and lawmakers.