The just concluded White House meeting on stablecoins did not make any progress At present, banks need to separate payment type stablecoins from "deposits or wealth management products". Stablecoins can only be used like cash or other payment tools and cannot be used to compete with bank deposits for funds with profits. The core meaning is divided into 5 layers: 1. It is prohibited to provide stablecoin holders with "any form of income or benefit" not just interest, but broader income. Any financial or non-financial consideration (money, points, cashback, gifts, benefits, subsidies) paid for the purchase, use, holding, custody, or storage of this payment stablecoin is generally considered illegal. Talking to people means that whether it's Coinbase's USDC subsidy or Binance or OKX's interest earning through holding coins, they are essentially not feasible. 2. Enforcement and penalties specify that regulatory agencies must enforce the ban and have the authority to impose civil fines. This means that it is not verbal guidance, but a framework of rules that can be implemented for punishment. Of course, currently only compliant payment stablecoins in the United States are restricted, and none of them have obtained this license yet. But for USDC and others who are currently or preparing to apply for licenses, this is not good news, but it doesn't matter for USDT. 3. Anti evasion clauses cannot be bypassed by changing the name, such as not interest, but activity subsidies, consumer cashback, or airdrops. It is not acceptable to provide benefits for holding coins, but rather for wallet and account rights. As long as it is essentially rewarding the holding or use of payment stablecoins, it may be considered as evasion. In this direction, PayFi, which is based on compliant payment type stablecoins, has completely collapsed. Of course, USDT is also fine, or other tokens can be used for payment. 4. Promotion and information disclosure are strictly restricted and cannot be promoted as earning interest or income like deposits, with FDIC or NCUA insurance, extremely low risk, equivalent to guaranteed deposits, and income paid by the issuer or a third party. Regulatory requirements require accurate disclosure and prohibit misleading marketing. This meaning is that attempting to purchase RWA US bonds with compliant payment type stablecoins is not feasible. 5. Two years later, an impact assessment will be conducted and regulations may be further refined. Two years later, regulators will submit research to Congress on stablecoin activities, their impact on deposits, payment system efficiency, credit availability, etc. If risks are identified, they will drive further rules. There's nothing more to say, I just don't want stablecoins to interfere with banks. At present, this document is provided by the bank, which is so bad that there is opposition from the cryptocurrency industry. The rest is just mutual pulling. In fact, from my personal perspective, if this document is really executed, it basically eliminates the possibility of raising the ceiling for stablecoins such as Circle that are trying to comply. @bitget VIP， Lower rates and more generous benefits