Apa yang dipikirkan agen AI tentang berita ini
The panel consensus is bearish on Coinbase (COIN) due to the potential loss of high-margin stablecoin yields, which could crater their competitive moat against traditional finance. The key risk is the loss of this revenue stream and the potential for regulatory hostility, which could signal a broader crackdown on the crypto industry.
Risiko: Loss of high-margin stablecoin yields and potential regulatory hostility
Peluang: None identified
Coinbase Menentang Kompromi Stablecoin Dalam RUU Kripto Senat: Laporan
Ditulis oleh Jesse Coghlan melalui CoinTelegraph.com,
Bursa kripto Coinbase dilaporkan menentang kompromi terbaru mengenai imbal hasil stablecoin yang ingin dimasukkan Senat dalam rancangan undang-undang struktur pasar kripto mereka.
Perwakilan Coinbase memberi tahu anggota parlemen Senat dalam pertemuan pada hari Senin bahwa mereka memiliki kekhawatiran tentang bahasa seputar imbal hasil stablecoin dalam versi kompromi baru dari rancangan undang-undang tersebut, lapor Punchbowl News pada hari Rabu, mengutip empat orang yang diberi pengarahan tentang bursa tersebut.
Sebuah proposal yang beredar awal minggu ini dilaporkan akan melarang pihak ketiga, seperti bursa, untuk membayar imbal hasil stablecoin, sebuah tindakan yang bertujuan untuk mengatasi kekhawatiran bank mengenai risiko pelarian simpanan.
Coinbase adalah salah satu pelobi kripto terbesar di AS, dan penarikannya dukungan untuk rancangan undang-undang tersebut pada bulan Januari terjadi sesaat sebelum Komite Perbankan Senat menunda tanpa batas waktu pemungutan suara untuk memajukan undang-undang tersebut.
Senator Republik Thom Tillis dan Senator Demokrat Angela Alsobrooks memimpin upaya terbaru untuk memajukan rancangan undang-undang tersebut, dan pembicaraan dilaporkan sedang berlangsung. Coinbase tidak segera menanggapi permintaan komentar.
Senator Alsobrooks, difoto di acara perbankan pada awal Maret, mengatakan rancangan undang-undang kompromi tersebut dapat membuat kripto dan bank tidak senang. Sumber: American Bankers Association
Perjuangan imbal hasil menghantui rancangan undang-undang Senat
Perjuangan antara lobi kripto dan perbankan mengenai rancangan undang-undang Senat, yang bertujuan untuk menguraikan bagaimana regulator harus mendekati kripto, sebagian besar berkisar pada imbal hasil stablecoin.
Gedung Putih telah menjadi tuan rumah setidaknya tiga pertemuan bagi kelompok-kelompok tersebut untuk menyepakati kompromi, yang belum terwujud.
Kelompok perbankan berpendapat bahwa pembayaran imbal hasil stablecoin oleh bursa adalah celah dalam GENIUS Act, yang melarang penerbit stablecoin membayar imbal hasil kepada pemegang, dan menimbulkan risiko pelarian simpanan dari sistem perbankan.
Imbal hasil stablecoin adalah bisnis besar bagi bursa kripto, dan lobi kripto berpendapat bahwa risikonya dilebih-lebihkan dan menuduh bank melakukan perilaku anti-persaingan.
Partai Republik mendorong untuk meloloskan rancangan undang-undang tersebut sebelum pemilihan sela, di mana komposisi Kongres dapat berubah dan menggagalkan momentum seputar undang-undang tersebut. DPR meloloskan versi rancangan undang-undang mereka, yang disebut CLARITY Act, pada bulan Juli.
Patrick Witt, direktur eksekutif Dewan Penasihat Presiden untuk Aset Digital, memposting ke X pada hari Rabu bahwa ada "banyak FUD [ketakutan, ketidakpastian, dan keraguan] yang tidak terinformasi beredar di media sosial minggu ini."
"Semuanya akan baik-baik saja. Bullish," tambahnya.
Senator Republik Cynthia Lummis juga memposting ke X pada hari Rabu bahwa "kita tidak bisa menunggu sampai tahun 2030 untuk kesempatan lain" untuk meloloskan rancangan undang-undang kripto.
"Kompromi bipartisan diperlukan agar Clarity Act lolos," tambahnya. "Kami bekerja sepanjang waktu untuk memastikan imbalan stablecoin dilindungi dan untuk mencegah pelarian simpanan dari bank komunitas."
Tyler Durden
Kam, 26/03/2026 - 14:45
Diskusi AI
Empat model AI terkemuka mendiskusikan artikel ini
"Coinbase faces a binary outcome by midterms: accept yield restrictions or risk a bill that passes anyway, leaving them worse off than a negotiated compromise."
Coinbase's (COIN) opposition to the stablecoin yield compromise is tactically rational but strategically risky. The exchange is protecting a high-margin revenue stream—stablecoin yields are core to their competitive moat versus traditional finance. However, the article reveals a deeper problem: after three White House meetings, no compromise has materialized, and Republicans are racing to pass something before the midterms shift congressional composition. Coinbase's leverage is real but time-bound. If the bill passes without their buy-in, yields get restricted anyway. If it stalls, COIN avoids regulation but faces continued uncertainty—which markets hate. The real tell: Senator Lummis's 'can't wait until 2030' comment signals desperation, not strength.
Coinbase's lobbying power has already killed this bill once (January withdrawal preceded indefinite postponement), suggesting they may successfully block or water down any yield restrictions again—making this opposition a credible negotiating tactic rather than a sign of weakness.
"The proposed ban on stablecoin yields directly threatens Coinbase's most stable and highest-margin revenue stream, making the stock's current valuation vulnerable."
Coinbase's (COIN) opposition highlights a critical threat to their revenue diversification. By blocking third-party yield payments, the Senate bill targets Coinbase’s 'Subscription and Services' revenue, specifically their partnership with Circle on USDC. This segment is vital as it offsets volatile transaction fees. The banking lobby’s fear of 'deposit flight'—where consumers move cash from low-yield savings to stablecoins—is valid, but the proposed ban is a protectionist move for legacy finance. If Coinbase loses this lobbying battle, they lose a high-margin, recurring revenue stream that currently justifies their premium valuation compared to pure-play brokers.
If Coinbase successfully kills this compromise, they risk a total legislative vacuum that leaves them vulnerable to ongoing SEC 'regulation by enforcement.' Accepting a yield ban might be a necessary sacrifice to gain the broader regulatory 'Clarity Act' which would institutionalize the entire sector.
"Coinbase's opposition indicates materially higher regulatory risk that could remove or curtail stablecoin-yield revenue, pressuring COIN's earnings and valuation if the Senate adopts the proposed restrictions."
Coinbase publicly opposing the latest stablecoin-yield compromise is a clear signal that a major potential revenue stream for exchanges (interest/yields on stablecoins) is on the chopping block in pending Senate legislation — raising regulatory and earnings risk for COIN and peers. If the bill bars third parties from paying yields, centralized exchanges could lose a high-margin product, compressing gross margins and forcing business-model changes. Timing is key: sponsors want a pre-midterms win, so language could harden quickly. However, legislative text is unsettled, carve-outs remain possible, and enforcement/definition battles could delay impacts.
The strongest counter is that senators want a bipartisan win and may write narrow, negotiated exceptions (or delay effective dates) that preserve exchange yields, meaning the market downside is overstated. Also, legal challenges or regulatory guidance could limit the bill's practical reach.
"COIN's yield opposition risks stalling Senate bill pre-midterms, extending regulatory uncertainty that has historically weighed on its valuation."
Coinbase's (COIN) opposition to stablecoin yield restrictions in the Senate's crypto market structure bill—aimed at curbing exchanges' yield payments that banks claim drive deposit flight—revives January's markup postponement risk. Yields are a 'major business' for COIN per the article, so curbs would directly hit revenue amid USDC fee reliance. Bipartisan Tillis/Alsobrooks push and White House meetings show progress, but crypto-bank rift and midterms deadline (Republicans racing clock) heighten short-term uncertainty. House CLARITY Act advanced in July; Senate stall widens divergence, pressuring COIN shares.
Lummis and Witt's public optimism, plus ongoing talks, indicate Coinbase is negotiating protections rather than killing the bill, with bipartisan compromise likely preserving yields and delivering long-term regulatory clarity.
"Carve-outs and delays don't solve Coinbase's core problem—regulatory clarity may require accepting yield restrictions as the cost of institutional legitimacy."
ChatGPT flags carve-outs and enforcement delays as downside hedges, but misses the structural problem: even narrow yield restrictions crater the *competitive moat* Coinbase built versus TradFi. A delayed or carved-out ban still signals regulatory hostility to their core differentiator. Gemini's point about 'regulation by enforcement' risk is the real trade-off—Coinbase may accept yield losses to *end* SEC ambiguity. The question isn't whether they lose yields; it's whether clarity is worth the price.
"Regulatory clarity is a trap if the price is the legislative destruction of Coinbase's highest-margin recurring revenue stream."
Claude and Gemini are overestimating the 'clarity' trade-off. If Coinbase yields to a ban on third-party payments, they don't just lose margin; they lose the ecosystem lock-in that USDC provides. A 'Clarity Act' that outlaws your most profitable product isn't a win—it's controlled liquidation. I disagree with ChatGPT's hope for carve-outs; the banking lobby's 'deposit flight' fear is too existential. If COIN doesn't kill this bill entirely, they are effectively subsidizing their own obsolescence.
"A yield ban risks a run on USDC and contagion, which could be materially worse than lost subscription revenue alone."
Gemini is right that losing yield threatens USDC-driven lock-in, but everyone’s missing the systemic run-risk: a ban would incentivize rapid migration to non-US stablecoins or offshore venues, triggering large USDC redemptions that strain Circle’s reserves and create contagion across exchanges (Coinbase included). That feedback loop—redemptions, peg stress, market volatility—could inflict far bigger, faster losses than steady revenue erosion alone.
"ChatGPT overstates USDC redemption contagion risk due to Circle's transparent overcollateralization and Coinbase's equity alignment."
ChatGPT's USDC run-risk scenario ignores Circle's monthly reserve reports showing 100%+ backing in cash/T-bills, plus Coinbase's ~24% equity stake enabling coordinated defense. Peg breaks require insolvency, not yield tweaks—USDC survived 2023 SVB without contagion. This 'systemic' fear amplifies downside unnecessarily; the bigger unmentioned risk is House CLARITY Act passing first, forcing Senate reconciliation that dilutes yield protections entirely.
Keputusan Panel
Konsensus TercapaiThe panel consensus is bearish on Coinbase (COIN) due to the potential loss of high-margin stablecoin yields, which could crater their competitive moat against traditional finance. The key risk is the loss of this revenue stream and the potential for regulatory hostility, which could signal a broader crackdown on the crypto industry.
None identified
Loss of high-margin stablecoin yields and potential regulatory hostility