On May 31, 2026, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon specifically mentioned the "interest-like" yield arrangements tied to stablecoin tokens in a public speech, warning that such designs "could ultimately collapse" and stating he "would never participate in such games." Almost simultaneously, what was considered a safety net for cryptocurrency interest products in the U.S., the "Clarity Act," delivered negative news: media quoted a single source stating that the probability of the bill passing within the year had decreased from a previously discussed "close to 70%" to a vague range of "slightly above 50%," indicating a significant cooling of legislative support. The bill originally attempted to establish a clearer regulatory framework for the U.S. cryptocurrency market, which included providing a compliant path for yield products tied to stable assets; however, the current version did not include such interest products under traditional deposit insurance protection, clashing directly with the banking industry's concerns. As these signals converged, the price of Bitcoin recently fell below the $76,000 mark, prompting analysts to focus on the key on-chain support level of around $71,400, as the market's sensitivity to regulatory and legislative prospects intensified, indicating a clear shrinkage in risk appetite amid policy uncertainty.

Interest Rewards for Stablecoins Trigger Banking Industry Pushback

From the traditional banking perspective, the Clarity Act opened up a "deposit-like interest" compliant imagination space for yield products tied to stablecoin tokens but failed to accompany it with deposit insurance and a complete safety net, deemed one of the most dangerous designs. Banks must pay capital occupation, liquidity requirements, and deposit insurance costs for every interest-paying deposit, yet there remains controversy and uncertainty about whether stablecoin yield accounts classify as bank deposits, securities, or a completely new financial product under the current U.S. framework, which effectively offers deposit-like returns without a clearly defined shell. The banking industry worries that if these accounts experience a bank run or asset loss under stress scenarios, risks could be transmitted back to tightly regulated banks through the payment system, customer confidence, and even regulatory expectations, creating a typical scenario of risk spillover and regulatory arbitrage.

In contrast, cryptocurrency companies' push for yield products linked to stable assets is very straightforward: bypass the traditional banking system and shift the act of "paying interest" from bank branches and savings accounts to on-chain wallets and application interfaces, directly competing for idle funds with users. The compliant pathway envisioned in the Clarity Act was seen by the industry as a way to issue returns comparable to bank deposit rates without becoming licensed banks, which banks view as competing for the same deposit cake under asymmetric regulation. On May 31, 2026, Jamie Dimon publicly stated he would not participate in interest-like arrangements related to stablecoins and described this structure as "ultimately likely to collapse," which, to the banking peers, sounded more like a statement of the systemic bottom line: if functionality has already approached deposits yet operates in a regulatory gray area and is outside deposit insurance, then regardless of how legislative prospects waver, such products will be viewed as potential sources of systemic risk rather than reliable new tools that can be comfortably integrated into conventional financial market competition.

Probability of Clarity Act Downgraded, Interest License in Limbo

Because the banking industry views these products as “shadow deposits,” the Clarity Act was once seen as a key piece of legislation for redefining the cryptocurrency market in the U.S.: on one hand, building a structural regulatory framework for the entire crypto asset market; on the other hand, attempting for the first time to create a compliant channel for yield products related to stable assets, allowing cryptocurrency companies to issue interest-like returns under a license. Previously, the market anticipated the "probability of passing within the year was close to 70%," leading law firms and leading platforms to design U.S. market yield account pathways accordingly. However, the latest media reports citing a single source indicate that this probability has dropped from nearly 70% to slightly above half, and the current version has not included related interest products within the scope of traditional deposit insurance protection; banking industry groups' reservations or opposition to loosening regulation have been interpreted as a direct driver of the decline in support.

For cryptocurrency companies reliant on the interest yield model, this downgrading of probability is not a technical detail, but rather a fracture in their business assumptions. Weakening legislative expectations mean that their hoped-for unified licensing and regulatory framework is unlikely to materialize in the short term, and the classification debate of stable asset yield accounts as "deposits, securities, or other financial products" will remain unresolved, with regulatory boundaries primarily drawn through the extended interpretation of existing laws and case law enforcement. In such an environment, any product line aimed at ordinary users, with earnings as a core selling point, must draft the risk of "being redefined or even held accountable at any time" into their business plans, making it challenging for stable asset interest operations in the U.S. market to be viewed as a reliable source of long-term stable cash flow.

Regulatory Gray Area: Dispute Over Ownership of Stablecoin Yield Accounts

Returning to the sharpest question: what exactly is a yield account aimed at American ordinary users that claims to be "dollar-pegged, with daily interest"? In the context of the Clarity Act's delays, it is neither recognized as a unified bank deposit nor explicitly categorized by legislation as a certain type of security or other financial instrument. Traditional bank deposits are backed by federal or state deposit insurance, while most stablecoin yield products clearly fall outside of this safety net; Jamie Dimon's statement of "I won't touch it" and "it will ultimately collapse" essentially emphasizes this point: if one wants to provide returns yet is unwilling to bear regulatory responsibilities equivalent to banks or securities, such designs are difficult to regard as "inter-industry competition" in traditional finance, resembling more of a "regulatory arbitrage."

However, during the legislative vacuum period, products are not inherently free but are thrown into another battlefield. Under the current U.S. framework, banking regulation and securities regulation impose entirely different licensing and compliance requirements for yield-bearing products. The Clarity Act attempted to pave a middle road for interest products related to stable assets but did not include them under traditional deposit insurance, which is the focal point of the banking industry's opposition. As the probability of passing the bill has been downgraded from nearly 70% to "slightly above 50%" according to a single media source, real power is reverting back to regulatory agencies: in the absence of new rules, the only way forward is through existing banking laws and securities laws, using case enforcement and interpretation to “hard categorize” them. For platforms, this means two paths: either proactively align these yield accounts with bank or securities products, accepting higher licensing costs and ongoing compliance expenses; or reduce, downplay, or even remove related yield functionalities to obtain a safety net from being redefined and held accountable, awaiting the real implementation of the next round of legislative and regulatory consensus.

Policy Uncertainty Combined with Bitcoin Pullback Sentiment

On the same day Jamie Dimon publicly stated that rewards would "eventually collapse," media once again cited a single source stating that the probability of the Clarity Act passing within the year had decreased from nearly 70% to slightly above 50%. For traders, this combination of signals equals: the compliant pathway for stablecoin yield accounts in the U.S. is no longer a smooth one-way street but more like a construction zone that could be redirected at any time. Under this reversal of expectations, market risk appetites for all high-volatility assets will be recalibrated; Bitcoin recently fell below the $76,000 mark, which became an amplifier for such a sentiment switch—the price decline itself does not necessarily indicate regulatory "bad news," but it is enough to force funds to interpret policy noise through a more pessimistic lens.

At the technical level, analyst Marcus Corvinus noted on May 31 that there is key on-chain support for Bitcoin at around $71,400, corresponding to the average cost of holders between three to six months; the same source believed that if that support holds, prices could rebound to around the $78,200 range. This judgement is based on a single source and is merely a technical perspective, far from a "consensus" in the market, let alone a prediction of future trends. More importantly, the current information lacks specific transaction volumes and precise time dimension details, making it impossible for outsiders to rigorously deconstruct: how much of the drop from $76K is influenced by Jamie Dimon's statement, how much by weakened expectations of the Clarity Act, or merely a typical trend pullback. One point can be made—amidst the oscillating legal classification of stablecoin yield accounts and the legislative prospects retreating from "high probability" to "undecided," every regulatory-related news is more likely to be amplified by the market as directional signals, making the inherently high-volatility price movement even more emotional and placing additional policy amplification risks on platforms and users.

From Dimon to Congress: The Next Step in Stablecoin Regulation

From Jamie Dimon's public "refusal to participate" to media reports of the probability of the Clarity Act passing within the year sliding from nearly 70% to slightly above 50%, the ongoing game around U.S. interest business for dollar-pegged tokens is forming a typical scenario of "regulatory gaps combined with high-pressure expectations": on one side, the banking industry amplifies risk narratives through Dimon's words; on the other side, the delayed legislation, which has not introduced deposit insurance arrangements, allows such earnings products aimed at ordinary users to continue to wander in the ambiguous boundaries of "are they deposits, securities, or other financial products." In the absence of new legislation as a safety net, U.S. regulatory agencies tend to redraw red lines through case enforcement and interpretive guidance, implying that platforms continuing to aggressively promote stablecoin interest to retail investors face rising compliance risks. Moving forward, project parties and platforms roughly have three paths to choose from: either bet on Congress eventually reaching some legislative compromise and patiently await clearer rules; or accept being categorized as deposits or securities, incurring higher compliance costs in exchange for "recognition"; or proactively scale back high-yield products, reducing margins and scale to decrease the probability of becoming a case sample, and their different weighing of these three paths will directly determine the future supply, pricing, and survival space of stablecoin interest products in the U.S. market.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。