@ tetra is conducting an audit, CRCL has plummeted, but the CLARITY Act bill has seen substantial progress after being stuck for months. It seems that these three things all point to a truth: the Crypto native forces that stablecoins originally relied on have officially compromised with the bankers behind TradFi. Why do you say that? 1) Tether's audit was very, very unexpected. @ paoloardoino has always been tough, and Tether has been "dead" under regulatory scrutiny for so many years. Despite being opaque and not audited, it has still achieved the world's number one position. I am now actively seeking out the Big Four auditors because I have sensed in advance that the CLARITY Act is about to be implemented, and I do not want to be downgraded to a gray asset and kicked out of the table. Therefore, I have to voluntarily admit my weakness; 2) To be honest, the sharp decline of @ circle CRCL is unbelievable. I don't think it's an impact of Tether's compliance on its leading position. As the most popular stablecoin among regulators, theoretically, the implementation of the CLARITY Act should be its highlight moment, but in reality, it just fell. The reason is that the clause that stablecoins cannot passively calculate interest for holders has strangled the strongest driver of USDC growth in the past. Without this clause, why would users move money out of the bank and exchange it for USDC? This is actually a structural issue with the Circle business model that has been re priced by the market. 3) As for the CLARITY Act, after being "choked" for several months, there was a sudden compromise result, and the conclusion was: activity rewards can be given, but money cannot be earned lying down. It seems that both sides have stepped back, but in fact the bankers have won win thoroughly. The logic behind bankers' opposition to the passage of the bill is simple. Bankers are concerned that the 0.1% interest rate on deposits and the 4-5% yield on the stablecoin chain, once legalized, will eventually move $6.6 trillion in retail deposits onto the chain. But the compromise clause dismantled this mine. But the question is, what are the rewards for the event, what are the reward rules, they are all ambiguous areas, which are definitely bearish for the CEX exchange, but may be positive for DeFi in the short term? Because in the past, the exchange provided stablecoin wealth management and current deposit income as the main means of user retention. Now that the passive interest calculation framework is restricted, compliance pressure will be directly transmitted. On the contrary, DeFi will exploit loopholes because the definition of "activity based rewards" is naturally the home ground of DeFi. Providing liquidity, participating in governance, and executing transactions are already on chain behaviors, and it is much easier to fit them into the framework of "activity rewards" than CEX.