The White House is set to convene senior executives from major banks and crypto companies on February 2, 2026, aiming to resolve the stablecoin rewards dispute that has stalled the CLARITY Act. The meeting, described as an emergency summit and organized by the President’s Crypto Policy Council, is focused on one of the most contentious questions in U.S. digital asset policy: who can offer returns linked to stablecoins, and under what rules.
The CLARITY Act is intended to establish clearer guardrails for digital assets and define how oversight is divided between agencies such as the SEC and the CFTC. Its progress in the Senate has slowed sharply because of a broader clash between traditional banks and digital asset firms over deposits. Banks see stablecoins as a direct threat to customer balances. Crypto firms want room to structure products that can compete on user incentives.
The dispute centers on reserve profits and user rewards
The key sticking point is the use of “rewards.” The earlier GENIUS Act barred stablecoin issuers from paying interest in the same way banks do. The CLARITY Act, however, is seen as leaving space for digital asset exchanges to take profits generated from reserves and return some of that value to users as rewards.
Banks want that opening closed. A recent Standard Chartered report warned that if the practice continues, stablecoins could draw nearly $500 billion out of U.S. banks by 2028. For smaller community banks, the risk is not theoretical. A sustained shift in deposits could hit their funding base hard.
David Sacks and Patrick Witt will help mediate
Participants in the White House meeting include David Sacks, identified as the White House AI and Crypto Czar, and Patrick Witt, director of the digital asset council. Their role is to referee a fight in which both sides are pushing hard. Banks argue that any third-party rewards should be banned outright to stop consumers from moving savings into stablecoins. Crypto leaders, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, say a ban would be unfair and would weaken U.S. leadership in technology.
There is at least one point of overlap. Both camps agree that without the CLARITY Act, companies remain stuck in regulatory uncertainty. That leaves firms guessing which rules apply and increases the chance that innovation shifts abroad instead of staying in the United States.
A compromise may be the only path for the bill
The White House intervention carries political weight as well. According to the source material, the administration wants a crypto policy win before the 2026 elections. Sacks recently said that a good compromise often means everyone leaves a little unhappy. In this case, that likely means digital asset firms may have to accept limits on rewards if they want the clearer and more predictable framework they have sought for years.
If no agreement emerges from the February 2 meeting, the result could be another year of lawsuits, mixed regulatory signals, and market structures developing outside the intended legal framework. The source says experts believe that if no deal is reached, the market may simply build around the law, creating a form of shadow banking that regulators would struggle to control.