2026 Stablecoin Track Watershed: Policy Battles Intensify, Legislative Window Opens in February

On February 12, 2026, Gate Market Data shows that BTC/USDT is currently trading at $67,800, up 1.2% over the past 24 hours; Ethereum has fallen below the key psychological threshold of $2,000, currently at $1,980, with its market cap dropping to the 86th position among global mainstream assets.

During this cooling phase of market sentiment, a track called “DeFi New Infrastructure” is showing an opposite level of enthusiasm: yield-bearing stablecoins.

Yesterday, the U.S. White House held its second dedicated meeting on stablecoins in succession. On one side, the banking sector remains firmly opposed to the word “yield”; on the other, the market has voted with real money, circulating $140 billion. The “interest-earning” property of stablecoins is experiencing a regulatory growing pain, evolving from grassroots innovation to mainstream financial infrastructure.

White House Push and Pull: Why Are Banks Sticking to the “Prohibit Yield” Red Line?

The February 11 meeting was described by participants as “smaller in scale and more efficient.” Unlike the polite deadlock of the first meeting, banks for the first time softened their stance, indicating willingness to consider “any proposed exemptions.”

But this does not mean the disagreements are resolved.

According to leaked documents obtained by Cointelegraph, traditional financial forces represented by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and the American Bankers Association still adhere to a strict “prohibition principle.” This principle not only fully bans any direct or indirect interests related to holding payment stablecoins but also emphasizes strict enforcement of anti-avoidance measures.

The core logic for banks is: once stablecoins have a significant interest-earning capability, they will transform from “payment tools” into “savings substitutes.” This would directly threaten the low-cost deposit pools that banks rely on for survival, thereby impacting their lending capacity to the real economy.

The crypto industry counters that the so-called “damage to public lending” is entirely false. Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty expressed a relatively optimistic tone after the meeting: “A spirit of compromise is forming, and there is still consensus on legislation for a sensible crypto market structure.”

Currently, the focus of negotiations has shifted from “whether to allow yield” to “the scope of permitted activities.” Crypto companies hope to adopt broad definitions to preserve room for innovation in areas like points, cashback, and on-chain governance rewards; banks, on the other hand, advocate for extremely strict and limited lists.

The U.S. government aims to complete related work by the end of February, leaving only half a month for both sides to reach a compromise.

The Unignorable $140 Billion: The Market Has Already “Decoupled”

While Washington is still defining what stablecoins should be, the market has already provided an answer.

A recent report from Gate Research Institute indicates that the total supply of yield-bearing stablecoins, which was nearly zero at the end of 2023, has surged to $140 billion in early 2026. This is no longer a liquidity mining cycle of the DeFi summer with “alternating inflows and outflows,” but a structural migration.

Bailiwick BUIDL has raised over $10 billion, and institutional-focused products like Hashnote USYC and Maple Syrup USDC are becoming standard interfaces for traditional capital entering the chain.

A more significant change is happening at the protocol layer. Lending protocols such as Aave and Morpho are evolving into “on-chain banks.” They no longer merely provide matching services but are establishing sustainable business models through interest spread capture. Yield-bearing stablecoins are no longer speculative tools but are becoming core collateral, forming the liquidity backbone of the entire DeFi ecosystem.

This is a subtle but decisive turning point: even before policies are implemented, the asset-liability sheets of traditional finance and decentralized finance are already beginning to merge substantively.

The Other Side of the Market: From “HODLing” to “Interest-Earning” User Mindset Shift

Beyond policy battles, changes in user habits are equally noteworthy.

On February 11, United Stables (U), a dollar stablecoin, launched its first staking activity in partnership with a wallet service provider, with a total incentive pool of 2 million U, and a maximum annualized yield of up to 20% during the event.

From “transaction medium” to “interest asset,” U’s strategic transformation is not an isolated case. As multi-layer channels—wallets, trading platforms, lending protocols—are interconnected, stablecoin holders are no longer satisfied with static digital figures on paper. Idle funds are expected to generate returns—an entitlement traditionally taken for granted in conventional finance, now realized in crypto through smart contracts.

Although the ultra-high APY of U’s staking activity is clearly a promotional early bonus, it reveals an irreversible trend: users are unwilling to sacrifice “safety” for “yield.” If bank-led stablecoin frameworks force all yields to zero, the market will push funds more rapidly toward offshore or non-compliant yield protocols.

The Global Regulatory Puzzle: Not Just a U.S. Issue

It is worth noting that not all jurisdictions are embracing this change.

On the eve of the White House meeting, China’s People’s Bank, China Securities Regulatory Commission, and six other departments jointly issued the 2026 version of the “Notice on Further Preventing and Disposing of Risks Related to Virtual Currencies.” The notice explicitly states that stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies, when circulated, have de facto functions of legal tender, and without approval, no domestic or foreign entities are allowed to issue stablecoins pegged to the RMB abroad.

This means that the compliance paths for yield-bearing stablecoins will be highly fragmented globally.

In Europe and the U.S., the focus is on “how to distribute yields”; in other major economies, the question remains “whether they can exist.” For platforms like Gate that operate globally, this presents both compliance challenges and a test of their ability to identify quality assets and serve users across regions.

The Next Step: The “Critical Point” of Bank Attitudes?

Returning to the core question: will banks fully compromise?

From the progress of the February 11 meeting, their stance has shifted from “completely rejecting” to “strictly limiting exemptions.” This is a defensive concession—rather than being bypassed entirely, they prefer to bring the game into familiar rules.

The real breakthrough may lie in “split operations.”

Future stablecoin regulatory frameworks might adopt a dual structure: one category is pure “payment stablecoins,” strictly prohibiting yield payments, mainly used for daily transactions and settlement, enjoying simplified compliance; the other category is “interest-bearing stablecoins,” classified as securities or money market fund products, subject to full fundraising, disclosure, and investor suitability requirements.

If this path materializes, banks will no longer cling to the abstract principle of “prohibiting yields,” but will instead compete for custody, distribution, and asset allocation rights of yield-bearing products. Banks will shift from blockers to beneficiaries, and the real resistance will substantially dissolve.

Summary

Bitcoin repeatedly tests the $67,000 level, with put options accounting for over 37% of options traded, and daily trading volume of large-scale put options exceeding $1 billion. Derivative data suggests that mainstream institutions are cautious about the market over the next one to two months.

It is precisely during this macro uncertainty that infrastructure-level narratives demonstrate greater resilience across cycles.

The evolution of yield-bearing stablecoins essentially marks the transition of crypto finance from “trade-driven” to “balance sheet-driven” maturity. Policymakers can decide whether to call these products “interest” or “rewards,” “yield” or “cashback,” but cannot reverse the physical law that funds seek effective allocation.

Banks may delay voting on legislation, but cannot stop $140 billion from making code-based choices.

For investors, rather than betting on policy timing, it’s more prudent to focus on protocol-layer assets deeply linked with firms like Bailiwick and Aave, capable of capturing real interest spreads. Regardless of how the White House’s final wording turns out, the true foundational layer of liquidity will always be scarce.