The Battle for Stablecoin Yields: US and European Regulators Clash Fiercely at Davos

【Blockchain Rhythm】On January 22nd, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the leader of a major compliant platform engaged in an intense debate with the European Central Bank decision-makers about the prospects of the cryptocurrency industry.

The focus of both parties centered on whether stablecoins can pay yields to users. One side argued that allowing stablecoins to offer yield mechanisms can enhance consumer returns and strengthen international competitiveness. They pointed out a paradox: if US regulators prohibit stablecoins from paying yields, it could actually increase the attractiveness of offshore products. In other words, excessive restrictions might have the opposite effect.

The other side held a completely different stance. They expressed concerns that private stablecoins with yield attributes could cause systemic shocks to the traditional banking system and threaten financial stability. From a European perspective, the value of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) lies not in yield competition but in safeguarding the secure operation of the entire financial system.

The discussion then shifted to US cryptocurrency legislation. Supporters emphasized that the CLARITY Act has not stalled but is in a complex negotiation phase. They explained recent strategic adjustments—opposing lobbying efforts from traditional finance trying to impose regulatory restrictions on the crypto industry. Another industry insider argued that “fair competition” should be a two-way street, with both crypto companies and traditional banks adhering to consistent regulatory standards.

When the topic turned to Bitcoin, the atmosphere became more ideologically conflicted. One side proposed the idea of a “Bitcoin Standard,” believing it could serve as a long-term tool against fiat currency devaluation. The other quickly rebutted, emphasizing that monetary policy is a core domain of national sovereignty, and private currencies could weaken that sovereignty. However, the proponent responded immediately—Bitcoin has no single issuer, and its decentralization even surpasses that of traditional central banking systems.

This debate reflects profound disagreements worldwide over the status of digital assets, involving not only regulatory bottom lines but also differing visions of the future of finance.