#Coinbase The matter of 'arguing' with the White House is fundamentally not an emotional conflict, but a structural collision that will happen sooner or later.
Many people think this is a political disagreement, but it is not.
This is the first time crypto finance has collided head-on with the traditional banking system at the legislative level.
The background is very simple.
After the Trump administration came to power, it released a very clear pro-crypto signal: stablecoin legislation, Bitcoin strategic reserves, and promoting the U.S. to become the 'crypto capital.'
The CLARITY Act is seen as a key step.
Its significance lies not in the details, but in the first attempt to give crypto assets a clear legal position, allowing the industry to truly 'expand legally.'
Coinbase was initially supportive.
Because any clear regulation is better than a gray area.
But the problem lies in a seemingly inconspicuous yet extremely crucial clause:
Can stablecoins pay yields to holders?
This line has stepped on the banks' lifeline.
If stablecoins can pay interest, then functionally they are no longer just "payment tools", but directly comparable to bank deposits.
And it is the kind that circulates 24/7 globally without the need for branches.
This is not optimization; this is substitution.
Thus, the banking lobby emerged.
The terms begin to morph from "clear regulation" to "allowed to exist, but cannot grow".
After realizing the issue, Coinbase chose to confront it.
Brian Armstrong said something very serious:
"Better no bill than a bad bill."
The real meaning of this sentence is:
If the result of legislation is to permanently lock down innovation, then legitimacy itself has no meaning.
Why is the White House angry?
Because from a political perspective, this is "you first promise to cooperate, then change your mind at the last minute".
But from an industry perspective, this is a bottom-line conflict.
Coinbase is not competing for a business but fighting for survival space in the future of crypto finance.
What this matter truly exposes is a long-ignored fact:
Cryptocurrency is not challenging regulation,
But rather challenging the banking system itself.
Once stablecoins can legally pay interest,
Deposits are no longer a natural moat for banks.
The US dollar no longer flows only through the banking system.
So this conflict is destined to be difficult to resolve easily with "compromise".
In the short term, this is a legislative game.
In the medium term, this is a struggle for financial discourse power.
In the long term, this is a watershed moment for whether the US dollar system will partially migrate to the blockchain.
This is not Coinbase vs the White House.
This is Crypto-native Finance vs Banking System.
What the market should really ask is not "who won this time",
But rather:
If stablecoins are eventually allowed to pay interest, what will the entire financial structure look like?
Setting aside interests, the advantages of crypto over banks can easily demonstrate advantages in transparency, cost, and efficiency. Costs are infinitely low, and efficiency is infinitely high.
Adding interests, the underlying logic supports huge benefits, and users are unaware. The potential for change is there; whether it is Coinbase or not is unimportant. The current outcome is also not very important; its commercial potential will excite or frighten everyone at the table.
That day may be closer than many people imagine.
