In the United States, the three lines of cryptocurrency, fintech, and real-world assets on the blockchain are being pushed forward simultaneously by the same invisible hand. For a long time, the Senate was stuck while promoting the CLARITY Act due to a seemingly technical issue that actually touched the foundation of deposits: whether crypto platforms can distribute returns to users holding settlement tokens pegged to fiat currency. Traditional banks repeatedly lobbied to restrict or even prohibit such distribution of returns in regulations, with a straightforward reason—if on-chain accounts can also receive "interest," wouldn't deposits quietly flow away from banks? However, platforms like Coinbase insisted that reward mechanisms are key chips for attracting users and driving product innovation, resulting in a stalemate at the Senate's doorstep, with the CLARITY Act at one point halted in its tracks.

A turning point appeared recently. Coinbase announced a crucial compromise with the American banking industry regarding the return terms for such tokens: under stricter regulatory constraints, banks receive more protection regarding restrictive terms, but users can still earn rewards through crypto platforms related to these tokens or platform activities under certain conditions. Coinbase's Chief Policy Officer, Faryar Shirzad, openly acknowledged that this was a deal where banks "won more," yet still preserved a viable channel for users to earn. Based on this, a team of senators led by Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks unveiled a new text for the CLARITY Act: allowing crypto companies to continue providing rewards linked to related tokens while emphasizing that the status of traditional bank deposit interest businesses must not be shaken. This was seen as clearing the core obstacle to advancing the bill and finally revealing the "shaping" outlines of the U.S. crypto regulatory framework. Almost simultaneously with the legislative thaw, Federal Reserve Board member Michelle Bowman mentioned Anthropic's Mythos in a public speech, reminding regulators: this new tool can both help companies identify and fix vulnerabilities and strengthen cybersecurity, but it may also be misused to discover and exploit system weaknesses; according to a single source, Anthropic has restricted access to the latest version of Mythos to assess protective measures. Regulatory focus has shifted from token returns to underlying technology, while industry researchers began methodically sorting out compliance structures and asset chain paths for U.S. RWA projects such as RealT, Ondo, Centrifuge, and Pre-IPO equity—from property rights to fixed income, supply chain finance to unlisted company equity—these explorations, along with CLARITY legislative progress and the Federal Reserve’s examination of new technologies, sketch out a reshaping financial landscape: banks no longer attempt to simply obstruct, crypto companies no longer just test the waters in gray areas, and real world assets quietly take the stage on the blockchain.

Ceasefire in the Battle of Returns: Banks and Coinbase Shake Hands

In the prolonged tug-of-war over advancing the CLARITY Act in the Senate, the real hindrance that repeatedly pulled negotiations back to square one was actually a seemingly technical provision: can users holding pegged asset tokens receive "interest"? Traditional banks quickly realized that this was not a marginal issue but rather a replication of the "deposits—interest" narrative right under their noses. Once users discovered that exchanging money for pegged tokens and leaving them on a trading platform could yield similar returns, the deposit base and interest income that banks had painstakingly cultivated over the years could be gradually siphoned away. Therefore, Wall Street's lobbying machine rapidly sprang into action, repeatedly pressuring the Senate and regulatory bodies to limit or even directly prohibit trading platforms from awarding any form of rewards to these token holders; meanwhile, crypto companies staunchly defended this "new territory of interest rate spread," citing product competitiveness. The confrontation around this return clause once put the legislative process regarding crypto market structure, including the CLARITY Act, into a standstill.

The real turning point came from the "handshake" between Coinbase and the American banking industry. Recently, Coinbase announced a key compromise with the banking camp concerning the related return provisions, seen as clearing the most critical obstacle for the CLARITY Act and other legislations. Coinbase's Chief Policy Officer, Faryar Shirzad, admitted that in this negotiation, banks received more protection under the restrictive terms: in the future, the rules will more clearly delineate boundaries to ensure that traditional deposit interest businesses are not directly "replaced" by on-chain products. However, this was not an unidirectional ceasefire. According to the framework resulting from the compromise, users can still earn rewards or returns related to those pegged tokens or platform activities under certain conditions—this is no longer described as simple, direct, unlimited "interest," but rather as being encapsulated in a container acceptable to regulators. The newly announced CLARITY Act text aligns with this mindset: on one hand, it clearly allows crypto companies to provide rewards related to pegged tokens; on the other hand, it emphasizes the protection of banking deposit interest businesses. The battle of returns did not declare a winner, but this ceasefire has brought the U.S. crypto regulatory framework one step closer to being formed.

Breaking the Ice with the CLARITY Act: Accelerating Crypto Legislation

Before this, Washington was spinning its wheels over a seemingly technical provision: should trading platforms be allowed to provide returns to users holding pegged asset tokens? Traditional banks once viewed this as a precursor to having their deposit pools "bled," repeatedly lobbying for a legislative closure of this route; meanwhile, platforms regarded returns as the core grip of product competitiveness, preferring to stall the bill rather than retreat unconditionally on the clause. The result was that a package of market structure legislations, including the CLARITY Act, was long "choked" by this return provision, and the relevant Senate advancement was nearly stalled. It was not until recently, when Coinbase confirmed a key compromise with the American banking sector on this battleground, that the stalemate was genuinely pried open: under stricter regulatory constraints, banks received more protection, but users still retained the space to obtain rewards related to pegged tokens or platform activities under certain conditions through the platform.

The newly published CLARITY text essentially writes this compromise into legal expectations: on the one hand, it clearly recognizes that crypto companies can design reward mechanisms related to pegged tokens; on the other hand, it emphasizes the need to protect traditional banks' deposit interest businesses, rewriting "can rewards be given" to "under what boundaries can rewards be given." According to public statements from Coinbase's Chief Policy Officer, Faryar Shirzad, banks received more concessions on restrictive terms, but the legislation did not entirely cut off user profit channels; instead, it guided them into a compliant and examinable pathway. Leading this compromise plan into the Senate text were Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks—joint action from both parties itself is a signal: the U.S. will not simply and crudely suppress these new types of revenue businesses but is willing to provide institutional space for the crypto market structure while preserving the fundamentals of banking. For market participants, this breaking point in the CLARITY Act signifies that the future compliance path in the United States is shifting from "should we regulate" to "under what rules should we regulate," with the regulatory framework's outlines becoming for the first time clear and tangible.

Federal Reserve Focuses on Mythos: AI Security as a Double-Edged Sword

On the legislative front, the digital asset revenue business has just shifted from "should we regulate" to "under what rules should we regulate," and the regulators' gaze immediately turns to another gray area. Federal Reserve Board member Michelle Bowman directly cited Anthropic's Mythos in a public speech, raising a new question: regulators must begin to consider how new technologies like Mythos should be regulated or integrated into the regulatory framework. This is not an abstract technical debate— as key regulators of the U.S. banking system, the Federal Reserve's stance will genuinely impact banks' willingness and methods to introduce such AI and cybersecurity tools into critical business systems.

Bowman's warning is very specific: these tools can help organizations identify and fix vulnerabilities while strengthening cybersecurity defenses; on the other hand, once in the hands of malicious users, they can also be employed to systematically scan for weaknesses and find exploitable entry points. Thus, Mythos stands as an example on the blurred boundary between being a "security tool" and a "attack script generator." According to a single source, Anthropic has imposed restrictions on access and use of the latest version of Mythos to assess protective and safety measures, and this self-restraint itself responds to the dual-use risk: the more powerful the capability, the more necessary it is to answer "who can use it, under what conditions."

For regulators, the challenge lies not in simply saying "yes" or "no," but in how to lock systemic risks in a cage without stifling innovation in security tools. An overly punitive one-size-fits-all approach could lead banks to avoid cutting-edge security tools due to compliance pressure, thereby solidifying existing vulnerabilities; while hands-off might enable the same set of tools to simultaneously arm both defenders and attackers, exposing the financial system to unpredictable new attack surfaces. Future policy discussions are likely to revolve around several main lines: should the emphasis be on regulating the tools themselves, or highlighting usage scenarios and access controls; should requirements fall on banks' vendor management and internal risk control frameworks, or should more flexible experimental space be reserved for such technological explorations? In a sense, Mythos regarding AI security regulation is following a path similar to that of the CLARITY Act—from "should we accept" to "under what rules to use," but this time, the stakes involve the cybersecurity resilience of the entire financial system.

From RealT to Ondo: RWA Moves Property Rights on-Chain

As regulators begin contemplating "under what rules to use technology," another line of reasoning seeks to answer "under what rules to move assets on-chain." Industry research positions RealT, Ondo, Centrifuge, and projects focusing on Pre-IPO equity on the same map; they almost form a negative image of the American RWA track: from real estate and bonds to receivables and unlisted equity, various rights are broken down into token units that can be programmatically identified and settled, subsequently stuffed back into the existing compliance framework.

On this map, RealT addresses "how to put houses on-chain." It focuses on the tokenization of U.S. real estate assets, placing offline properties into a compliant structure, held by a carrier, while mapping the revenue rights associated with properties onto the blockchain; offline, it still pertains to rent, maintenance, and taxes, while on-chain, it merely records and allocates revenues proportionally. Ondo then extends this idea to fixed-income and fund-like products: the underlying is composed of traditional financial assets, while the upper leverages token shares issued to on-chain investors—allowing on-chain capital to seek returns within familiar securities and bond frameworks rather than chasing shadows in difficult-to-price purely on-chain assets. Both share the commonsense approach of first acknowledging offline legal relationships and regulatory boundaries before designing token rights structures and investment thresholds within those boundaries.

Centrifuge targets supply chain finance and receivables, turning those assets originally filtered and bundled by banks and large institutions into legally effective asset pools, then connecting them to on-chain liquidity in a tokenized form, enabling "small invoices" to access global capital markets. Simultaneously, projects centered around Pre-IPO equity attempt, under compliance conditions, to divide unlisted company equity or revenue rights into finer token shares, exploring possibilities for secondary circulation within a restricted investor range and information disclosure requirements. The challenge here is no longer "can tokens be issued," but rather how to find a balance between securities regulation, investor protection, and on-chain transferability.

These practices interconnectedly provide U.S. regulators with an alternative narrative: digital assets need not only correspond to abstract codes and emotions, but can also anchor to auditable and traceable real-world assets. For decision-makers worried about funds departing from traditional systems while hoping for the continued evolution of digital infrastructure, RWA emerges as an acceptable compromise—it brings familiar asset forms such as real estate, debt rights, receivables, and equity onto the blockchain while firmly tethering the new technologies to the "rope" of the real economy through compliance frameworks and on-chain paths.

New Regulatory Balance: The Next Moves for Crypto, AI, and Real Assets

From the compromise over pegged fiat token returns to the breakthrough of the CLARITY Act, and the Federal Reserve bringing Anthropic's Mythos into discussions of financial stability, a single thread becomes increasingly clear: U.S. regulators no longer see "crypto" and "new technologies" as risk sources that can be easily severed, but instead, they attempt to redistribute returns, responsibilities, and discourse through rules. The deal struck between Coinbase and the banking sector around the return clause first delineated boundaries between token rewards and deposit interest, easing the zero-sum conflict of "withdrawing deposits"; then, the new CLARITY text codified this compromise into the bill, creating a predictable framework for "what kind of rewards can be issued, under what conditions." Meanwhile, Bowman publicly pointed out tools like Mythos, acknowledging their potential to enhance cybersecurity while warning against the risks of their exploitation by attackers (Anthropic has similarly, according to a single source, restricted access to the latest version of Mythos), indicating that regulators are beginning to view AI as part of financial infrastructure rather than just surrounding noise.

As the rules of "money" are redrawn, explorations surrounding RealT, Ondo, Centrifuge, and Pre-IPO equity provide regulators with another validation: on-chain structures can also serve traditional real estate, fixed income, supply chain receivables, and unlisted equity, as long as the paths are embedded within existing compliance frameworks. These parallel developments sketch out a larger game: protecting the robust position of the banking system, allowing compliant crypto businesses to have growth space, and constructing barriers at the intersection of AI and real asset tokenization. Moving forward, whether in continued congressional progress for the CLARITY Act and other legislations, or specific constraints imposed on forms of rewards, technological use, and asset mapping, they will all become reference coordinates for the global industry—how far traditional financial institutions dare to push assets "on-chain," whether crypto companies can design more attractive products under compliance conditions, and whether the RWA track can scale within regulatory-friendly boundaries will all be simultaneously granted opportunities by this new order while being firmly constrained. For all participants, real competition will no longer be about "whether to comply," but rather who can be the first to learn to innovate within this new balance.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。