The pace of US congressional progress on the crypto market-structure bill known as the CLARITY Act (House version: H.R.3633, 119th Congress) is picking up. According to a report by South Korean analyst Tiger Research — relayed by Korean media outlet Tokenpost (usdtcard has not independently verified the congressional procedural details cited therein) — a compromise has been reached on the most contentious clause: “passive interest” earned merely by holding stablecoins would be prohibited, while rewards tied to actual “activity” such as settlement, transactions, or staking may be permitted. The report suggests the US crypto regulatory framework could become meaningfully clearer by July.
One point needs to be addressed upfront, because it was the source of confusion in the last round of reader feedback: the CLARITY Act and the GENIUS Act are two separate pieces of legislation. The GENIUS Act (S.1582) specifically governs stablecoin issuance and reserves; the CLARITY Act (H.R.3633) is broader, with its core purpose being to delineate the jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC (securities regulation) and the CFTC (commodities regulation) across crypto asset classes. The “indirect interest compromise” discussed in this article is a market-structure dispute. For the actual procedural status, the authoritative source is the Congress.gov H.R.3633 bill page — the “May 14 amendment” mentioned in Korean media is a secondhand account that we cannot verify word-for-word against primary text. Readers should cross-reference independently.
What This Means for USDT Card Users
The direct impact is not on the act of “swiping a card” itself, but on the yield characteristics of the stablecoin balance behind the card.
- Users who rely on stablecoin yield: Some platform-based cards (such as Coinbase Card and Wirex) distribute rewards on stablecoin balances or staked assets held in-account. If “earn by holding” is classified as securitized passive interest, these “sit-and-earn” products face repackaging in the US market, while “staking/settlement-linked rewards” are more likely to survive.
- Pure payments users: Users who treat USDT purely as a funding rail — top up and spend — are minimally affected. MPCard, which focuses on Asia-Pacific virtual Visa and does not prominently feature “balance yield,” has a core payments use case that does not depend on passive interest clauses and is therefore less exposed.
Timeline expectations (the following are editorial judgments, not statutory text):
- Within 7 days: No card will adjust fees or limits because of this news. No action needed.
- Within 30 days: If legislation does have a July milestone, US issuers whose flagship product is “stablecoin yield” may begin updating the wording on their terms pages.
- Within 90 days: This is our editorial judgment — US yield-based products will face pressure to restructure how they describe “interest.” Note this is a forecast, not a fact that has already occurred.
If you are comparing USDT cards, see 2026 USDT Virtual Card Top 5 and Lowest-Fee Card Comparison, and select based on whether your primary need is “payments” or “yield.”
Historical Comparison
This compromise differs from the two previous reference points in important ways.
- 2023 USDC depeg: That was a reserve-asset risk event (Circle’s exposure at SVB) — a market event, unrelated to legislation. This time it is proactive legislation drawing a line, which is the opposite dynamic.
- 2024 SEC vs. Coinbase lawsuit: That was “after-the-fact line-drawing” through enforcement, with regulatory boundaries established slowly through court precedent. The CLARITY Act approach is pre-emptive legislation clarifying the SEC/CFTC division — same goal of drawing a line, but shifting from “litigating” to “rule-writing.”
- GENIUS Act reserve framework: That bill governs reserve adequacy on the issuance side; CLARITY governs asset classification. Together they form a complete US stablecoin regulatory picture; neither alone is sufficient.
The common thread: all are tightening the grey zone around “whether stablecoins can bear interest like deposits.” The distinction: this time the mechanism is a legislative process — once enacted, certainty is higher than case law.
Compliance Boundaries: Where the Lines Currently Sit
- Clearly permitted: Using USDT/USDC as a payment and settlement medium.
- Trending toward prohibition (if the clause is enacted): Passive “interest” paid purely for holding, which may be brought under securities regulation in the US market.
- Grey zone, still pending: Staking rewards and settlement cashback — “activity-linked” rewards — this is precisely the space issuers will seek to claim.
US-based users should refer primarily to US Compliance Guide. Asia-Pacific users operate on different rails with distinct tax and regulatory logic; see Hong Kong Compliance, Japan Compliance, and Singapore Compliance respectively. Do not apply the US “interest prohibition” directly to Asia-Pacific accounts.
Key Milestones Worth Watching
- July: The legislative “watershed” cited in the Korean media report. Track the actual status changes in the Actions tab directly on Congress.gov H.R.3633, not secondhand summaries.
- SEC/CFTC joint statement: Once the jurisdictional split is written into law, both agencies typically publish enforcement guidance.
- US issuer terms pages: Any changes to the “Rewards / Interest” wording in Coinbase or Circle-affiliated products would be the earliest on-the-ground signal.
- GENIUS Act and CLARITY coordination: If the two bills progress on different timelines, there may be a transitional period where reserves are legislated but asset classification has not yet caught up.
Editorial Recommendations
- Users focused on payments who do not rely on balance yield: No action required. Holders of payment-oriented cards like MPCard are not directly affected by this news.
- US-based users earning yield on stablecoin balances: Monitor issuer terms-page announcements before July. Do not redeem or transfer assets early based on a single secondhand report.
- All readers: The procedural details in this article — the “May 14 amendment,” “July enactment” — originate from Korean media accounts that we have not independently verified. Treat the Congress.gov primary record as authoritative. If you encounter secondhand claims such as “the bill has passed” or “the interest clause is now in effect,” check the bill page before acting.
We do not conduct independent on-chain testing, nor do we predict legislative outcomes. All “30/90-day” timeframes in this article are editorial judgments and have been labeled as such throughout; factual uncertainties have been stated explicitly — that is precisely the value of distinguishing secondhand reporting from primary legislative documents.