What to expect from the White House’s 10 February stablecoin meeting
From delayed votes to abrupt price dumps, crypto is heading into the 10 February White House meeting under heavy pressure. Behind closed doors, senior officials, major banks, and leading crypto firms are trying to break a long-running impasse over the CLARITY Act and the future of interest-bearing stablecoins.
The outcome will not just shape a niche corner of digital assets. It could redefine how “digital dollars” work, who is allowed to pay yield on them, and how closely they will resemble traditional bank deposits.
—
Why this meeting matters so much
Inside the White House, the stakes are unusually high. The 10 February discussion is expected to be a turning point after months of standstill on the CLARITY Act, a key piece of legislation meant to define the regulatory perimeter for stablecoins and related services.
At the heart of the fight is one question:
Should stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms be allowed to pay interest on dollar-pegged tokens – and if so, on what terms?
That single issue has become the most explosive flashpoint in the entire debate.
—
Interest-paying stablecoins: innovation vs. banking risk
Crypto businesses argue that yield-bearing stablecoins are the next logical step in the evolution of money on the internet. If users can hold tokenized dollars and earn a return, they say, the system becomes:
– More efficient, because on-chain dollars can move 24/7
– More inclusive, because individuals who are underbanked can access yield with just a wallet
– More competitive, because it pressures legacy finance to improve rates and services
For large platforms, this is not a theoretical argument. Yield on stablecoins is already a core revenue engine. A major exchange, for example, reportedly generated around 355 million dollars from stablecoin-related income in the third quarter of 2025 alone. For such companies, aggressive limits on interest would hit right at the center of their business model.
Traditional banks see the picture very differently. They warn that if stablecoins can pay attractive yields with relatively few frictions, depositors might rapidly move their savings out of bank accounts and into tokenized dollars.
The number that keeps being cited in these discussions is striking: about 6.6 trillion dollars in deposits are considered at risk of being drained from the banking system over time if interest-paying stablecoins are fully liberalized. Banks frame this not only as a commercial threat, but also as a systemic risk to credit creation and financial stability.
—
The “skinny” Fed master account: too little, too much, all at once
The second major fault line concerns access to the Federal Reserve. The Fed has floated a “skinny” master account model for certain crypto firms, which would:
– Allow very limited, heavily conditioned access to central bank services
– Stop well short of full, bank-like privileges
– Be wrapped in strict oversight and operational requirements
Crypto firms argue this proposal is too narrow to matter. In their view, without more direct and flexible access to central bank rails, it is impossible to build robust, low-risk, dollar-backed stablecoin systems at large scale.
Banks, in contrast, worry that even a thin slice of access opens the door to a two-tier system in which non-banks begin to encroach on core banking functions. They fear a slippery slope in which “experimental” access quietly evolves into full competition with licensed banks.
The result is that almost nobody is happy with the current design. Crypto companies see it as symbolic and insufficient; banks see it as a risky precedent. That tension is one of the main reasons the CLARITY Act remains stuck, and why the White House meeting is being treated as an attempt to force movement.
—
How past meetings have jolted the crypto market
Recent history shows how sensitive crypto prices are to regulatory signals – and especially to delays and cancellations.
– After the 2 February policy meeting, total crypto market capitalization slid from about 2.64 trillion dollars to 2.54 trillion dollars in short order. There was no catastrophic headline, but the perception that regulators were still stalling and divided was enough to trigger a wave of selling.
– An even sharper shock hit on 15 January, when the Senate Banking Committee abruptly scrapped a planned vote on the CLARITY Act. Within minutes, crypto asset prices fell by roughly 7.5%, erasing billions of dollars in market value. The message traders took away: uncertainty itself is a form of risk.
On the flip side, when policymakers do manage to agree, markets have shown they can rebound just as fast.
A clear example came on 18 July 2025, when the GENIUS Act was signed into law. That decision injected a sense of regulatory direction and optimism, helping to ignite a broad rally. Many altcoins climbed close to 12% over the following week, helped by the perception that at least part of the rulebook was finally settled.
This pattern is now etched into traders’ minds:
– Delay or political infighting → volatility and sell-offs
– Concrete, even if imperfect, agreements → relief rallies and renewed risk-taking
—
Why the market feels edgy before 10 February
Even before the latest White House meeting begins, the stress is showing across charts and order books.
The dominant fear is that, under pressure from banks and cautious regulators, officials could opt for a hard line: a strict cap or even a de facto ban on paying interest on stablecoins, at least for non-bank entities.
That prospect alone has been enough to chill sentiment. In a single day, total crypto market capitalization dropped to roughly 2.36 trillion dollars, a decline of around 1.65%. That kind of move, without a specific catastrophic event, signals broad risk reduction rather than panic.
Flagship assets are under pressure as well:
– Bitcoin is trading near 69,132 dollars at the time of writing, struggling to find strong upside momentum.
– Ethereum has slipped to about 2,040 dollars, under the weight of heightened trader anxiety and thinning liquidity on the buy side.
Instead of a full-blown capitulation, analysts describe the current mood as a defensive reshuffle. Large and sophisticated players appear to be trimming leveraged positions, rotating into more conservative holdings, or parking capital in cash and short-term instruments while they wait for clarity from Washington.
—
What could realistically come out of the meeting?
While no single meeting is likely to resolve every open question, several plausible outcomes are being discussed in policy and market circles. Among them:
1. A temporary compromise on interest-paying stablecoins
Lawmakers could agree on transitional rules that:
– Allow interest, but impose caps on rates
– Require higher-quality reserves and more frequent disclosures
– Restrict which entities can offer yield directly to retail users
This would not satisfy anyone fully, but it would reduce uncertainty and might be enough to calm markets in the short term.
2. A phased approach to the Fed’s “skinny” accounts
Officials might endorse a pilot framework where a small number of highly regulated issuers receive limited access to central bank services, subject to ongoing review. This would:
– Give regulators real-world data
– Allow the Fed to pull back if risks materialize
– Provide at least some concrete path forward for compliant firms
3. Another delay framed as “technical work”
The most market-negative scenario is a fresh postponement, presented as a need for more impact studies or inter-agency coordination. Given how markets reacted to previous delays, even a neutral-sounding postponement could trigger renewed selling.
4. A strong tilt toward banks
A more aggressive outcome would be to reserve interest-paying stablecoins largely for bank-affiliated entities, effectively sidelining independent crypto platforms. Markets would likely see this as both a regulatory crackdown and a structural shift in who can profit from tokenized dollars.
—
How traders and investors are positioning
In the run-up to 10 February, many market participants are taking classic “event risk” precautions. Common tactics include:
– Reducing leverage: Futures and margin traders scale back positions to avoid forced liquidations if headlines move prices violently in either direction.
– Rotating into majors: Some capital flows from speculative altcoins into more established assets like BTC and ETH, which are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as relatively safer during regulatory turbulence.
– Increasing stablecoin balances, but cautiously: Paradoxically, even as stablecoins are the subject of the meeting, many traders still use them as short-term dry powder. The key difference is that some are avoiding yield products until they know whether restrictions are coming.
– Short-term hedging: Options markets can see increased demand for protective puts, especially around the meeting date, as institutions and active traders seek downside insurance.
This is less about a belief that crypto is “doomed” and more about respecting headline risk in a market that has repeatedly shown sensitivity to regulatory developments.
—
Why regulators are so focused on interest
From a policymaker’s perspective, the interest question is not just about yield percentages; it goes to the core of how money and credit are created.
– If stablecoins paying interest become widespread, they could start to look and behave like deposit accounts, but without being subject to the same capital, liquidity, and supervisory rules as banks.
– That, regulators argue, could create a “shadow banking” system in which runs and failures transmit quickly into the traditional financial sector.
At the same time, policymakers are aware that pushing everything into banks might stifle innovation, drive activity offshore, or push users toward less transparent products. The White House meeting is essentially an attempt to thread this needle: encourage innovation and digital dollar adoption, while preventing a destabilizing drain on the regulated banking system.
—
What a “good” outcome would look like for the market
From the perspective of most investors, the ideal is not necessarily ultra-light regulation, but predictable rules. A broadly positive scenario for markets would likely include:
– Clear definitions of which entities can issue and manage stablecoins
– Transparent conditions under which interest can be paid, with understandable caps and risk controls
– A roadmap for how non-bank issuers can integrate more closely with the existing financial system without breaking it
– Realistic implementation timelines, so businesses and investors can adjust gradually
Even relatively strict rules can be digested if they are stable and coherent. The worst-case outcome for valuations is a regime of constant ambiguity, where every canceled vote or cryptic statement becomes a trading catalyst.
—
How this could reshape crypto beyond prices
Whatever direction the 10 February meeting points toward, the impact will extend past short-term charts. Medium- and long-term consequences could include:
– Redesign of stablecoin products: If interest is limited, issuers may focus more on payments and settlement use cases and less on savings-like features, altering how users think about holding stablecoins.
– New business models for exchanges and platforms: Companies that relied heavily on stablecoin income may diversify into custody, tokenization of real-world assets, or infrastructure services to offset regulatory caps on yield.
– Stronger role for compliant issuers: Entities that can meet strict reserve, reporting, and governance standards may gain market share as “regulated digital dollar providers,” especially if they receive some form of direct or indirect central bank access.
– Consolidation: Smaller or lightly regulated stablecoin projects may struggle to survive in a more demanding environment, leading to fewer but larger players dominating the market.
—
Is this a crash, or just strategic caution?
Despite the visible pullback in prices and the nervous mood, many analysts are not labeling the current move as a structural breakdown. Instead, they see:
– Controlled de-risking rather than blind panic
– A desire to lock in profits after prior rallies, ahead of a known policy event
– Sensitivity to news, but still significant liquidity and ongoing interest in the sector
In other words, the market is reacting not to confirmed bad news, but to the fear of what might be quietly negotiated away – especially the right for non-bank actors to pay interest on stablecoins.
Until the White House signals a clearer direction on the CLARITY Act, stablecoin yield, and Fed access, crypto is likely to remain jumpy. Yet for many, the discomfort is the necessary price of maturing into a system where digital dollars, interest, and regulation are finally forced to coexist.
Anyone engaging with these markets should recognize that regulatory events can move prices as dramatically as technological or macroeconomic shocks – and manage risk, size, and time horizons accordingly.