Why is only Coinbase desperately opposing CLARITY? CLARITY suddenly got stuck this time. On the surface, it seemed like there were differences in the wording, but in reality, there was only one reason: The money involved in this bill is so large that no party can pretend to be rational. Not billions. Not hundreds of billions. But it's 6 trillion US dollars. This is a warning given by the CEO of Bank of America himself: If interest bearing stablecoins are allowed and stablecoin accounts are allowed to provide returns like money funds, up to $6 trillion in bank deposits could be withdrawn, equivalent to one-third of the total deposits in commercial banks in the United States. As long as you keep this number in your mind, everything that happened today will no longer be strange. 1. CLARITY is not the starting point, but the second step Many people believe that the controversy over stablecoin returns is the first time that CLARITY has been brought to the forefront. No. The real starting point is the GENIUS Act passed last year. The GENIUS Act has made it clear for the first time at the federal level that: Prohibit interest bearing stablecoins. This is not about "strengthening supervision" or "raising compliance thresholds", But rather directly denying a form—— Stablecoins themselves do not allow payment of interest or income to their holders. At that time, the industry's understanding was: Okay, the issuer cannot pay interest, so there is still room for the platform layer, account layer, and reward mechanism. The bank has chosen to accept. Not because of satisfaction, but because they know - this is just the first line of defense. 2. The true purpose of CLARITY is to completely seal off the unsealed areas of GENIUS GENIUS prohibits the issuer. CLARITY is attempting to ban the entire revenue channel. Not just stablecoins themselves, but any: platform third party wallet Account layer Passive income generated solely from holding stablecoin balances The relationship between these two bills can be summarized in one sentence: GENIUS closes the door, CLARITY closes the window. This is not accidental, but a clear, gradual, and extremely directional institutional path. 3. Why do banks have to block this road? Because what they see is not 'encryption innovation', But the deposit structure is starting to loosen. The business model of a bank essentially has only one thing: Deposit taking → lending → interest rate spread. If the stablecoin account is legal, secure, and scalable, And it can also provide revenue, For ordinary users, bank deposits are no longer the only option. The $6 trillion that banks lost will not disappear. It will become a stablecoin balance. And where will the stablecoin balance settle? On the exchange, in the wallet, on the payment platform, on the chain. So what banks really fear is not a 3% or 4% yield, But rather losing the pricing power over the 'dollar account'. 4. What is Coinbase opposing? Coinbase is not arguing about whether it can pay interest. It opposes something more fundamental and long-term: Will encrypted accounts be permanently classified as second-class financial accounts under the law. If CLARITY passes the current version, what will the encrypted account become? Can trade Can transfer money Can pay But it cannot settle balances and form stable income expectations like a bank account Sounds reasonable, even safe. But from the perspective of institutional structure, this is equivalent to writing a sentence in advance in federal law: A true financial account can only exist within the banking system. Coinbase is very clear that once this judgment is written into law, In the next ten years, or even longer, it is almost impossible to be overthrown. So that's why it said the extreme sounding but logically consistent sentence: I would rather have no bill than a bad one. 5. Why are a16z, Circle, and Kraken willing to continue pushing forward? Because they are betting on the path of realism. In their view: End the SEC's state of law enforcement replacing legislation first First, clarify the boundary between SEC and CFTC First, give the encryption industry clear federal legitimacy As for profits DeFi、 Execution scale, gradually revised in the future What they are concerned about is: If the table is lifted now, the legislative window may close directly. 6. This is not industry infighting, but a division in survival philosophy On one side is realism: It is believed that the framework should be implemented first, and then the game should be played within the framework. On the other hand, there is bottom line mentality: Believe that the first step cannot be wrong, otherwise there will be no room for correction in the future. A16z, Circle, Kraken see bridges. Coinbase sees a cliff. This is not a moral difference, But rather the differences in location, size, and long-term risk exposure. 7. Why is Coinbase so tough this time? Here is an often overlooked but extremely important background: Because now, it may be the most crypto friendly political window in American history. Whether it's Trump himself, He is still a key figure in the current White House and Congress who leads market structure legislation, They are clearly more understanding and even more supportive of the development of encrypted assets than at any previous period. What does this mean? This means that now is the only window of opportunity to strive for a "closer to perfect CLARITY". Coinbase is very clear: If in such a political environment, It is impossible to clearly discuss and write down core issues such as stablecoin returns and account forms, In future more conservative or anti encryption political cycles—— This matter will have no chance at all. From this perspective, Coinbase's tough stance is not emotional, But rather a bet with a clear historical judgment: If we don't argue now, we won't be able to argue again in the future. 8. Coinbase is doing this, right? My judgment is: Strategic judgment is correct, political strategy is extremely risky. The right place is: It is indeed blocking a potential institutional path that could permanently downgrade encrypted accounts, And it was during an unprecedented friendly window period, attempting to speak clearly at once. The adventure lies in: It is transforming the industry from "joint promotion" to "open division". And in this division, The lobbying system of traditional banks still enjoys the most time dividend. The longer it drags on, The more opportunities they have to make the 'profit ban' stricter, harder, and more irreversible. 9. Would it be better to modify according to Coinbase's requirements? In the long run, it will definitely be better. As long as stablecoins can retain even a portion of their profit potential, The global competitiveness of US dollar stablecoins will be stronger, On chain finance will not be castrated in advance. But reality is equally clear: The difficulty of modification is extremely high. Because this is no longer a technical issue, But rather a blatant political choice: Standing on the side of bank deposits, Still standing on the side of the new US dollar account. The last sentence GENIUS has banned the issuer from paying interest. CLARITY attempts to ban platform and account layer earnings. This is not accidental, But rather the process of the banking system tightening its defense line step by step. And the reason why Coinbase chose to confront it at this moment, It's not because it's reckless, But because it judges: If we miss this government, this group of officials, this political window, It is impossible to strive for a better CLARITY in the future.