Clarity Act is now poised to accelerate the “Bretton Woods 3.0” framework that I’ve talked about. The yield “ban” is cosmetic & simply something for banks to tout as a victory. It bans stablecoins from paying you interest for just holding them: the way a savings account does. But it explicitly allows stablecoins to pay you rewards for using them: buying things, lending, providing liquidity, participating in any program.. Now consider that those rewards can be calculated based on how much you hold & for how long. I think that’s what we just call interest, but it will now be rebranded under a new name. So, the implications: - The fact that there is now a carve-out for stablecoin yield will accelerate the Bretton Woods 3.0 system. If the ban had been real (no yield in any form) there’s no reason for anyone to hold stablecoins over a bank account. Stablecoin adoption would flatline (especially in Developed Markets) & Bessent’s $3.7T target would be hard to achieve. This carve out keeps the incentive to hold stablecoins, which keeps the growth flywheel spinning. - CBDCs can’t compete. No central bank would design its digital currency to pay activity based rewards calculated by balance & duration (too close to monetary policy). However, dollar stablecoins can. So in every market where a CBDC competes against a $ stablecoin, the dollar product is economically superior. The Clarity Act now guarantees that advantage persists. - The dollar now goes global without permission. The new text allows platforms to pay incentives for payments, remittances, & settlement activity using stablecoins. That’s a subsidy for global dollar adoption funded by private companies (not taxpayers). Meanwhile, increasing Treasury demand in the background. For example, a Filipino worker now gets a rebate for sending remittances in USDC. There’s an additional incentive for him to now transact in stablecoins, which, unbeknownst to him, purchases American debt behind the scenes. A win-win for global stablecoin users & the American economy (fiscal situation). The compromise looks like a ban. But it’s actually a growth mandate. As I’ve stated, the US government needs stablecoins to scale because it needs someone to buy its debt. Bretton Woods 3.0