I think people are misunderstanding what’s happening here. The new draft of the CLARITY Act does not prohibit issuers from paying distributors such as @coinbase , @binance , or @okx . The discussion around yield is really about retail holders, meaning the end users who actually hold the stablecoin. In practice, @coinbase likely would not be allowed to pass that yield through to users, or at least not as easily as many people previously expected. What does that mean for @circle? Circle would obviously continue paying Coinbase for distribution. Circle is not the party that stands to make more money from this dynamic. Coinbase is. Today, Coinbase distributes roughly 60% of the yield it receives to users, so if passthrough becomes restricted, Coinbase could potentially retain 100% of that economics instead. One could argue that if Coinbase’s net revenue rises materially, Circle might try to renegotiate its agreement. As things stand today, Coinbase receives 100% of the NIM on all USDC held on Coinbase platforms, and 50% of the NIM on USDC held elsewhere, excluding Circle Wallet. But I do not think this necessarily changes the relationship. Coinbase knows USDC is the stablecoin of choice for Base, much of DeFi, and regulated U.S. markets. Whether or not it can pass yield through to customers, it still has very strong economic incentives to grow USDC supply. From Circle’s perspective, if the distributor no longer bears the cost of sharing yield with users and can keep the full NIM, that may actually improve the terms for these arrangements ahead of any future negotiations. On Tether, I also disagree with the claim that: “The dump was then accelerated by the news that Tether is pursuing a full audit, which threatens Circle’s positioning in the U.S. and Western markets as the tightly regulated, more trusted alternative to USDT.” I think that is simply wrong. The CLARITY discussion does not materially change the positioning of either issuer. Tether may pursue a full audit, but USDT still would not be GENIUS-compliant, and USAT remains very small in the U.S. and is not a meaningful competitive threat to Circle today. More likely, an audit would help Tether’s broader fundraising and credibility efforts rather than fundamentally alter Circle’s competitive position in the U.S. More broadly, USDC and USDT are very different products. They serve different user bases, operate with different economics, and rely on very different distribution strategies. So overall, I do not think this really changes the outlook for Circle or Tether in a major way. The biggest impact is on consumers/retail users and US Banks, not on the issuers themselves.