This week, in Eastern Standard Time, the game surrounding two digital asset bills in the U.S. Congress is heating up: Senator Thom Tillis is expected to announce the draft of the "CLARITY Bill" next week; Representatives Steven Horsford and Max Miller, among others, have released a discussion draft of the "Digital Asset PARITY Bill," aiming to reshape the use logic of crypto assets from a tax perspective. On the surface, one side may incorporate sensitive clauses that "restrict stablecoin yields," while the other opens space for tax-exemption on transactions below $200 and tax deferral for miners and stakers. The two lines seem to coordinate a unified framework, yet they actually bury deeper conflicts regarding profit distribution and tax rights. The cryptocurrency fear and greed index has currently fallen to 12, indicating an "extreme fear" zone, with both funds and emotions retracting. In this window period, the real issue brought to the table is: in the era of digital dollars, who will control interest income and taxation discourse — traditional banks and the U.S. Treasury system, or the new financial infrastructure operating on the chain.

Stablecoin Interest Under Scrutiny: The Invisible Battleground of Banking Lobbying

According to public information, the draft of the "CLARITY Bill" is expected to be released next week, and the market is paying close attention to the potential inclusion of stablecoin yield clauses. However, the current statements about "restricting stablecoin yields" only come from a single channel, with key details such as specific restrictions, applicable subjects, and the existence of exemptions all missing, which means the outside world can only understand its potential impact from directional signals rather than textual details. Although the information is still incomplete, the competition over yields has already heated up in public opinion and lobbying.

Cryptio CEO Antoine Scalia directly characterized the potential yield ban as "self-interested behavior by traditional banks," exposing the nature of conflicting interests: on the liability side, interest-bearing stablecoins are seen by users as highly substitutable with bank deposits. Whoever can offer more transparent and competitive yields can siphon away dollar liquidity. For the banking system that relies on the cost advantage of deposits and the interest rate spread of treasury bonds, the higher and more open the on-chain dollar interest is, the more traditional models are challenged. Therefore, legislating to "suppress" this portion of interest is essentially a defense of their profit pool.

If yields are forcibly suppressed or even essentially banned, user preferences for dollar asset vehicles will be reshaped: users who were previously willing to hold yield-bearing tokenized dollar assets on-chain may be forced to choose between "yield-free on-chain dollars" and "bank deposits that still offer interest but are more regulated." In the absence of other credit enhancement mechanisms, this structural squeeze is very likely to lock interest yields back into banks and the U.S. Treasury system, making on-chain dollars more of a "no-interest channel" rather than a new value-bearing container.

A more subtle issue is the information asymmetry in the legislative game. The lobbying system of the banking industry in Washington is mature and well-funded, often conducted in closed meetings and technical hearings, with limited external transparency; comparatively, while some associations and companies in the crypto industry participate in policy discussions, their voice and level of organization are noticeably weaker. The industry often discovers that certain clauses have already taken shape only through media disclosures and second-hand information, passively lobbying under existing frameworks, making it challenging to shape the boundaries of issues from the outset. This structural disadvantage also serves as a realistic constraint behind the yield clause debate.

$200 Tax Exemption Red Line: PARITY Releases Usage Signals

Unlike the sensitive "deposit side" of CLARITY, the "Digital Asset PARITY Bill" approaches from the tax system, targeting usage scenarios. According to the published discussion draft, the bill proposes to exempt capital gains tax on digital asset transactions not exceeding $200 (especially for daily use with dollar-pegged assets). The intuitive effect of this design is to eliminate a layer of heavy compliance costs for small payments and settlements, redirecting these assets from "speculative objects that require accounting for every transaction and may generate taxable income" to payment tools that can be naturally embedded in daily consumption.

For ordinary users, the $200 tax-exemption threshold means that in scenarios like small transfers, cross-border payments, and online consumption, they no longer need to worry about tax obligations due to every minor price fluctuation, reducing the compliance burden from "every transaction needs accounting" to "only large and speculative operations need attention." From a regulatory perspective, this also serves as a mechanism to guide on-chain dollars from high-volatility assets towards "payment infrastructure," placing them in a usage context similar to credit cards and third-party payments.

The PARITY draft also proposes allowing miners and stakers to engage in tax deferral, although specific durations and technical details have not been disclosed, but it provides a cushioning mechanism for the cash flow pressure of PoW and PoS projects in general. For most network participants, block rewards and staking yields are often valued in tokens, while tax obligations are assessed in fiat currency. If frequent liquidation is required in the short term to pay taxes, it is easy to be forced to sell during price downturns, creating "tax selling pressure." The deferral mechanism implies that the tax burden can match the project development pace over a more reasonable period, helping to smooth out peaks in selling triggered by tax obligations.

On a more macro level, a relatively unified and predictable tax framework helps alleviate fears of tax compliance among businesses and retail investors, pulling back teams that were originally hesitant to carry out business in the U.S. due to concerns about tax system risks into the regulatory purview. If minor usage and network participation itself are incorporated into clear exemption or deferral rules, the U.S. can retain a significant portion of crypto business onshore without sacrificing regulatory dominance, thereby avoiding systematic innovation "going offshore."

Tax Limitations and Expansions on Yields: Policy Tension Behind a Unified Framework

Placing the two bills on the same policy map reveals striking contrasts: on one side, there are indications that CLARITY may limit interest yields on on-chain dollars, while the other side of PARITY attempts to release tax-friendly signals at the usage and network participation level. The former makes "earning dollar interest on-chain" more difficult, while the latter makes "spending dollars on-chain and participating in the network" easier. This combination of "hard to earn interest, easy to use" constitutes the core tension of current U.S. digital asset legislation.

If the yield side is pressured while the tax burden on the usage side decreases, on-chain dollars may likely be redirected from a "deposit-like product" to a "high-turnover payment chip": users will no longer stay on-chain due to interest but will frequently use it for payment and settlement due to convenience and tax compliance; issuers, in turn, will shift from a bank-like role of "profit from interest spread" more towards earning transaction fees, liquidity service fees, and other value-added services. This will profoundly change the incentive structure between issuers and users, forcing existing business models that rely on interest income to seek new balances.

Within Congress, these two bills are likely backed by different interest alliances: one side emphasizes protecting the stability and profitability of traditional financial institutions, hoping to safeguard the deposit base by restricting the expansion of new "deposit-like" products; the other side is concerned that the U.S. is falling behind in the digital asset innovation race, attempting to create a more favorable business environment through tax simplification and deferral. In the absence of a unified top-level design, this contradictory mindset of "wanting to protect bank profits while not wanting to miss out on innovation dividends" can easily pull legislation towards a makeshift compromise.

The risk lies in policy fragmentation. Once yield restrictions and tax incentives are advanced in different bills and committees without rigorous coordination, their effects may cancel each other out in the real economy: on-chain dollars may fail to provide attractive yields while bearing the risks of issuance compliance and technology; project parties might gain tax relief on the usage side but lack stable revenue support on the funding side. For the industry, this "institutional stitching" is unlikely to support a long-term predictable business model, making it more difficult for innovators to assess the costs and returns of building business in the U.S. Over time, this may reinforce a collective strategy of "waiting and see" or "migration offshore."

Monetary Control Reshuffled: The Zero-Sum Boundary Between Traditional Finance and On-Chain Finance

Looking back over a longer cycle, this round of legislation surrounding on-chain dollar interest and tax arrangements is not merely a battle of interests within a single industry, but a redistribution game about the pricing power, settlement rights, and distribution rights of interest income. Interest-bearing on-chain dollars effectively shift some of the interest income traditionally monopolized by banks and the U.S. Treasury system to a new network based on smart contracts and protocols, directly touching the core, most sensitive profit and power structures of the dollar financial system.

In this context, observing the small tax exemption and tax deferral in PARITY together reveals another potential evolutionary path: if the crypto network continues to lead in technical efficiency, settlement speed, and cross-border accessibility while receiving clear tax-friendly status, its role in the issuance and circulation of dollars may upgrade from that of a marginal payment tool to a key component of the basic settlement layer. On-chain dollars becoming a more efficient vehicle means that traditional banks' intermediary functions in certain payments, settlements, and term conversions will be weakened, and the profit distribution structure of the financial system will be redefined.

The underlying request of the crypto industry is to attract capital, developers, and users to stay and build on these networks long-term through sustainable yield mechanisms and a loose, clear tax system; whereas the traditional finance strategy acknowledges technical efficiency advantages while lobbying to restrict the expansion of new "deposit-like" products, ensuring that "real interest" and "most credible dollar liabilities" remain firmly under the control of licensed banks and the treasury market. The two form a sort of zero-sum boundary in monetary control in the era of digital dollars, with legislation serving as the primary tool for delineating this boundary.

The spillover effects of U.S. legislative directions cannot be ignored either. Whether it is attitudes towards on-chain dollar interest, the tax exemption for small transactions, or tax deferral for miners and stakers, will all be seen as important references by offshore dollar token issuers and regulators in other jurisdictions. Once the U.S. establishes a clear stance on yields and tax systems, other countries will either choose to imitate and replicate a similar framework locally or opt for competitive misalignment, establishing more lenient or more closed alternative systems. In this regard, the game between CLARITY and PARITY has already surpassed the boundaries of the domestic industry and has become a front-line battle in the global digital dollar order.

Fear Index Falls to 12: Defense and Opportunity Under Legislative Uncertainty

In this legislative tug-of-war, market sentiment has already cooled down. The cryptocurrency fear and greed index is currently in the "extreme fear" zone at 12, reflecting that investors, faced with fluctuating regulatory and tax signals, tend to reduce exposure and remain on the sidelines rather than actively take on policy risks. For many institutions, the default defensive posture has become "minimizing exposure until the bill is clearly defined."

The conflicting signals around a potential yield ban and tax deferral are also exacerbating business model uncertainty for project parties. On one hand, if interest yields are limited or even stripped away, the protocol models relying on interest spreads or yield redistribution will have to rewrite their logic; on the other hand, tax-friendliness and deferrals signal "the long-term construction can obtain institutional dividends." The overlapping of these two lines forces startup teams to reserve space for multiple institutional scenarios when planning financing, token economics, and business deployment, driving up expected legal and compliance costs.

At this stage, miners, stakers, and on-chain dollar issuers tend to adopt a more conservative strategy: controlling the pace of large-scale expansion and avoiding making long-term yield commitments before legislative action unfolds; some participants are beginning to evaluate or promote business migration, relocating core operations or new business trials to jurisdictions with more tax-friendly regulatory environments, in order to hedge against U.S. policy uncertainty. This "first diversifying then choosing a landing point" defense action has also, unintentionally, weakened the appeal of the U.S. as a destination for a new wave of innovation.

However, amidst the extreme fear, there exist structural opportunities. Once the versions of CLARITY and PARITY gradually become clearer, especially as key terms are defined during hearings and amendments, projects that first adjust their tax structure, yield models, and compliance paths may gain significant premiums in valuation and market acceptance. For participants willing to invest resources in compliance layouts in advance, the legislative uncertainty period could serve as a window to accumulate "institutional chips" and build protective moats, rather than merely waiting passively within a gray area.

Countdown to the Legislative Window: Who Will Succeed in the Digital Dollar Order

In summary, the concurrent advancement of CLARITY and PARITY in Congress essentially revolves around a threefold core issue: "Who gets the yield," "what is the tax burden," and "where is the innovation." The first concerns whether on-chain dollars can compete with bank deposits in terms of interest, which determines whether interest profits flow to protocols or revert back to banks and the U.S. Treasury system; the second issue relates to what tax rates and compliance burdens ordinary users, miners, stakers, and enterprises will face when participating in the network and using on-chain dollars; the third issue directly asks whether the U.S. is willing to provide sufficient institutional space within rules for genuinely valuable innovation to remain domestically, serving the dollar system itself.

At this point, the specific yield restriction clauses of CLARITY have not yet been made public, and PARITY still remains in draft form, leading to significant uncertainty regarding any specific timelines and final appearances for implementation. Whether it involves estimating the probability of the bill's passage or betting on the details of a particular version, much of it remains projection based on emotion and stance rather than assessment built on complete information.

Next, the exchanges of interests and restructuring of discourse between the banking industry, crypto industry, and regulatory bodies during the hearings and amendment phase will determine the boundaries of these two bills: whether they lean towards protecting deposits and financial stability or adjust slightly to enhance America's competitiveness in digital asset infrastructure, or form what appears to be a compromise framework that actually constrains each other amid multiple negotiations. The true game lies not only in public statements but in the tug-of-war over every wording of the text.

For investors and practitioners, a more pragmatic strategy is not to bet on a single outcome but to prioritize layouts that possess resilience under various versions of the bill. First, closely watch the specific expressions and execution standards related to yield and tax provisions rather than remain caught in coarse discussions of "whether to limit" or "whether to exempt from tax;" second, when designing the business model and token economy, avoid excessive reliance on a single institutional dividend, allowing for space in scenarios where interest is restricted, tax burdens rise, or multi-jurisdiction operations occur. The order of digital dollars is still forming, and those who can maintain healthy cash flows, controllable taxes, and compliance flexibility in uncertain environments will have a better chance of standing at a new high point post-completion of the next institutional reconstruction.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。