The yield-bearing stables debate is a bit confused at the moment. Yes, yield should be allowed to be passed to electing holders. But we *should* separate forms and define the regulatory treatment between these forms. Payment stablecoins ideally should be dollar equivalents, in all respects. That includes accounting and tax treatment. How would that work with a fundamentally yield-bearing token? If yield is passed via rebases, token value fluctuates between rebase events. If yield is instead passed through via redemption, then the token's value is constantly increasing. That is and cannot be a dollar equivalent. So then ideally you must have a base-level payment stablecoin *and* a yield-bearing version that operates and is treated differently. Fundamentally, they are two different things. So then the next question is whether and how *payment stablecoin* legislation should address the latter category. Politics is the art of the possible. Reps need 7 Dems to sign on to this legislation in the Senate. If you watched the Senate Banking Committee markup hearing, while performative, you would have seen that Hagerty and Reps argued against many fundamental amendments Dems introduced by suggesting they are more appropriately addressed in market structure legislation. There is a level of consistency in suggesting so too should yield-bearing "stables" (or perhaps tokenized MMF). And current drafts of the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act (imo) do allow structuring yield to be passed through to holders, just not directly from the issuer via the *payment stablecoin*. So while that yield transfer absolutely should be permitted, the ultimate form and treatment of that yield transfer is a matter of some debate. As an aside, I do think we should consider allowing issuers to in-house both functions (base-level stable + yield-bearing version), but I don't think it's the end of the world to separate out the functions. Like Frank Herbert says, the yield must flow (and it will).