Banks vs. Crypto: The $1T Yield Fight - The Chopping Block

Watch on YouTube ↗  |  January 22, 2026 at 04:03  |  55:53  |  Unchained (Chopping Block)
Speakers
Peter Van Valkenburgh — Research Director, Coin Center
Tom Schmidt — General Partner, Dragonfly
Haseeb Qureshi — Managing Partner, Dragonfly
Robert Leshner — CEO & Founder, Superstate

Summary

The Chopping Block discusses the Senate markup of the Crypto Clarity Act, including Coinbase's withdrawal of support, developer liability, tokenized securities language, and the banking fight over stablecoin yield. Coin Center's Peter Van Valkenburgh argues the bill meaningfully constrains SEC and Treasury discretion and includes crucial developer safe harbors, despite flaws. The panel debates whether yield restrictions are meaningful or easily circumvented, and what the fight means for banks, stablecoin issuers, and bill passage odds.

  • Senate markup of the Crypto Clarity Act sparks intense industry infighting.
  • Coinbase withdraws support, citing a de facto ban on tokenized equities and DeFi concerns.
  • Peter Van Valkenburgh sees meaningful developer protections and constraints on SEC/Treasury discretion.
  • Debate over whether tokenized securities language harms innovation or simply restates existing law.
  • Banks push to restrict stablecoin yield to protect deposit funding and net interest margins.
  • Panel identifies loopholes in yield restrictions and doubts Coinbase's hard stance.
  • Polymarket odds of bill passage fall from 80% to 40%; Peter thinks odds may be too low.
  • Discussion of sanctions obligations for DeFi frontends and OFAC guidance.
Ideas
Peter Van Valkenburgh Research Director, Coin Center 5:08
Clarity Act odds are too low.
The Senate Banking markup of the Clarity Act meaningfully constrains SEC and Treasury discretionary authority and includes the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act's safe harbor for software developers. Despite the visible fight over stablecoin yield and political risks, the bill is closer to passage than expected, so Polymarket's 40% odds for 2026 passage appear too pessimistic.
Tom Schmidt General Partner, Dragonfly 41:24
Stablecoin yield threatens bank profits.
US banks face a major profitability threat from stablecoin yield because if stablecoins pay yield, banks must raise deposit rates to compete, directly compressing net interest margin and potentially shaving hundreds of billions of dollars from bank market caps. The banking industry's push to restrict stablecoin yield is a defensive move to protect an oligopoly-like zero-deposit-rate structure.
Tom Schmidt General Partner, Dragonfly 44:26
Stablecoin issuers are highly profitable.
Stablecoin issuers such as Circle and Coinbase are very good businesses because they resemble narrow banks: they pay zero yield to stablecoin holders and capture the full net interest margin on reserve assets. The stablecoin yield restriction debate is overblown because many loopholes and rewards-based routes remain available, so incumbent issuers stay highly profitable.
Haseeb Qureshi Managing Partner, Dragonfly 47:40
Yield ban entrenches stablecoin incumbents.
If stablecoin rewards or yield are banned, it could actually entrench incumbents like Circle and Tether by curtailing competition from new entrants and preserving a 100% net interest margin on stablecoin reserves. That would allow them to build an international duopoly even if they lose domestic yield-based business.
Up Next

This Unchained (Chopping Block) video, published January 22, 2026, features Peter Van Valkenburgh, Tom Schmidt, Haseeb Qureshi discussing Polymarket: Clarity Act passes in 2026 (YES), KBE, COIN, CRCL. 4 trade ideas extracted by AI with direction and confidence scoring.

Speakers: Peter Van Valkenburgh, Tom Schmidt, Haseeb Qureshi  · Tickers: Polymarket: Clarity Act passes in 2026 (YES), KBE, COIN, CRCL