U.S. community banks have publicly opposed the CLARITY bill, saying it should not leave room for stablecoins to effectively pay interest.

On Aug. 31, blockchain outlet CoinPost reported that Rebecca Romero Rainey (레베카 로메로 레이니), chair and CEO of the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), said there was "no compromise" on the issue and stressed the need to revise the bill.

The central question is whether stablecoins can work like substitutes for bank deposits beyond being a payment tool. Rainey said stablecoins "do not appear to be staying as merely a payment method" and have begun to take on features very similar to deposits even without the infrastructure that supports traditional deposit systems. Community banks believe such a structure could move deposits outside the banking system and weaken relationship-based local lending.

The ICBA estimated that $1.3 trillion could, over time, flow out of bank deposits into stablecoins. It also raised the possibility that community lending could fall by $850 billion. Community banks take deposits locally and supply them back as local loans, and they argue that a smaller deposit base could weaken the ability to provide financing in local areas.

The issue is also affecting prospects for the bill. The Senate is expected to hold a cloture vote on Sept. 15 to move the CLARITY bill to floor consideration. Rainey said it appeared the bill had not yet secured the votes needed for passage, and she viewed one reason as how it addresses community banks' concerns about deposit outflows.

The bill under discussion would ban offering rewards simply for holding stablecoins, while limiting earnings to incentives tied only to various activities within a platform. Banks are pushing back, saying the provision is ambiguous. Rainey said, "We have to completely close this loophole." There is concern that if stablecoins indirectly function as deposit substitutes, the purpose of regulation could be undermined.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers took a clearly different view in an analysis released in April. The council said that even a full ban on stablecoin interest would have little impact, with bank lending rising by just $2.1 billion, about 0.02 percent. Rainey countered that it is difficult to predict how market structure will change after the CLARITY bill is passed.

Rainey said the digital asset market is currently driven by speculation and investment, but the situation could change if systems for remittances and payments develop. She said such a shift could be a "game changer." If stablecoins become more deeply embedded in everyday payments and fund transfers, much larger deposit movement than now could occur, she said.

Separately, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's approvals for trust banks and the U.S. Federal Reserve Board's review related to payment master accounts are also heightening banks' wariness. Community banks believe that if deregulation for crypto and fintech companies overlaps, the existing deposit base at traditional banks could be further shaken.

Ultimately, the focus ahead of the Senate vote is how clearly it refines provisions banning stablecoin interest. Community banks say the path for stablecoins to function as deposit substitutes should be blocked, while opponents believe the impact on actual bank credit supply is limited. This clash over stablecoin rules is increasingly likely to directly affect vote counting on the CLARITY bill.