Author: BruceBlue , former General Partner at Bing Ventures

I don't see this stablecoin bill as a mere short-term catalyst, but rather as a redistribution of regulatory pricing power.

Baseline judgments and predictions regarding the bill:

Probability of committee approval on May 14: 70–80%
Probability of final legislation by 2026: 55–65%
Stablecoin reward terms retain a compromise framework: 60–70%
Bank lobby rates are tightening further: 25–35%
Short-term sell the news: 35–45%

The core contradiction behind this is:

The banking system hopes to prevent stablecoins from evolving into deposit-like products and impacting the traditional deposit base;
The crypto industry hopes to retain incentive mechanisms in payments, transactions, and real-world use cases, allowing stablecoins to continue to have network expansion capabilities.

And compliant stablecoin issuers like @circle happen to stand at the intersection of these two.

This is why I pay more attention to $CRCL, rather than being bullish on all Crypto Beta in general.

What truly deserves repricing are not regulatory arbitrage assets, but infrastructure companies that can absorb institutional funding, real-world payment scenarios, and the need for on-chain dollar transactions under the new rules.

In the short term, $CRCL may still experience event-driven fluctuations, but in the medium to long term, the market will price not only reserve income, but also Circle's value as the infrastructure of a compliant USD payment network.

Foreword

US crypto regulation is entering a critical window.

The market's short-term focus is on the Senate Banking Committee's markup on the CLARITY Act on May 14. However, the core of this matter is not a typical policy vote, but rather whether the United States will formally incorporate crypto assets, especially stablecoins, into its financial infrastructure system.

If the Clarity Act proceeds smoothly, its impact on the market will not be limited to "crypto stocks rising for a day," but will change how investors price @circle, @coinbase , RWA, and the entire dollar stablecoin system, including DeFi.

The most noteworthy among them is $CRCL , because its investment rationale is shifting from:

Stablecoin issuers: Earning US Treasury yields through USDC reserves
Upgraded to 🆙
On-chain financial infrastructure for the US dollar: USDC + Payment Network + Arc + AI

This is precisely the biggest impact of the stablecoin bill on Circle.

Bill Location: GENIUS addresses issuance, CLARITY addresses market structure.

Here we need to distinguish between the two bills.

The GENIUS Act, which came into effect on July 18, 2025, explicitly states that it establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoin activities and, in principle, prohibits non-permitted payment stablecoin issuers from issuing payment stablecoins in the United States. The Treasury/FinCEN has also proposed rules requiring permitted payment stablecoin issuers to be treated as financial institutions, subject to BSA, AML, and sanctions compliance obligations. In other words, the GENIUS Act addresses:

┌──────────── GENIUS Act ─────────────┐
Subject: Stablecoin Issuance
│
Who can issue it?
How should reserves be managed?
How are redemption, auditing, AML, and sanctions compliance implemented?
└──────────────────────────────────┘

The Clarity Act (HR3633) addresses a larger market structure issue. The Senate Banking Committee website indicates that the committee will consider HR3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, on May 14, 2026, at 10:30 AM ET. It addresses:

┌──────────── CLARITY Act ────────────┐
| Topic: Crypto Market Structure
│
Is a token a security or a commodity?
How do the SEC and CFTC divide their responsibilities?
How should exchanges, DeFi, and tokenization be regulated?
Where are the boundaries of stablecoin rewards?
└──────────────────────────────────┘

Therefore, for Circle, GENIUS determines whether USDC can be issued in compliance with regulations; CLARITY determines whether USDC can enter trading, payment, RWA, DeFi and AI agent scenarios on a larger scale.

The core controversy: Can stablecoins become "deposit-like products"?

The most critical controversy surrounding the CLARITY Act is not the cryptocurrency itself, but rather the stablecoin rewards.

Reuters' summary of the latest version of the bill is: the bill will prohibit rewards that pay interest-like payments to idle stablecoin balances, but will allow rewards related to trading activities; the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury will need to jointly develop implementation rules.

Behind this lies a core conflict of interest between banks and the crypto industry.

┌──────────── The banking industry is worried ────────────┐
Stablecoins that pay interest
User funds may flow from bank deposits to stablecoin platforms.
| Formation of a "shadow deposit system without FDIC insurance"
└──────────────────────────────────┘
┌──────────── Demands of the Crypto Industry ──────────┐
│ We cannot ban all rewards.
Payment, transaction, and usage scenarios require incentives.
Otherwise, stablecoins will find it difficult to become a true payment network.
└──────────────────────────────────┘

Therefore, the current direction of compromise is:

┌──────────── Stablecoin Reward Boundaries────────────┐
│ Prohibited:
Simply holding stablecoins to earn passive income
| Similar to bank deposit interest rates, idle balance yield
│
| Allowed:
│ Payment Rewards
│ Transaction Rewards
│ Activity-based incentives linked to real-world usage scenarios
└──────────────────────────────────────┘

This is generally favorable for Circle.

Circle's core advantage lies not in attracting users with high interest rates, but in compliance, transparent reserves, institutional access, enterprise payments, developer APIs, and the future Arc/Agent Stack ecosystem.

If passive income is restricted, the competitive model relying on "high-interest deposit-taking" will be under pressure; if activity-based rewards are retained, Circle's payment network and ecosystem expansion will have more room to grow.

Probability of approval: The committee has a high probability of approving, but there are still variables for the entire college.

My assessment is that the committee has a high probability of passing the law on May 14th, but its eventual enactment cannot be considered a certainty. There are three reasons for this:

The Senate Banking Committee has formally included HR3633 in its markup agenda.
Reuters reports that the bill aims to clarify regulatory jurisdiction over the crypto industry, including when tokens fall under the categories of securities, commodities, or other categories.
With the GENIUS Act now in effect, the US policy path has shifted from "whether to regulate stablecoins" to "how to integrate stablecoins into the financial system."

However, the obstacles are also clear: the banking industry is still lobbying to limit stablecoin yields; some Democrats are dissatisfied with AML and conflict-of-interest provisions; and sufficient bipartisan support is still needed across the Senate. A Reuters report noted that the bill requires the support of at least seven Democratic senators across the entire Senate.

I would break down the probability like this:

┌────────────────────────────┬──────────┐
│ Event Probability Judgment
├────────────────────────────┼──────────┤
│ On May 14, the committee approved 70-80% of the votes.
│ 55-65% of the time, legislation is expected to be finalized by 2026.
│ Stablecoin reward terms largely retain a compromised version (60-70%).
│ Bank lobby rates have been further tightened by 25-35%.
│ Short-term sell-the-news rate 35-45%
└────────────────────────────┴──────────┘
Therefore, the market should not only look at "whether it passes or not", but also "how it passes".

If the committee approves the terms, but the stablecoin reward terms are significantly tightened, it will still be beneficial to Circle's long-term compliance logic, but the short-term valuation elasticity will be suppressed.

If the committee approves and the activity-based reward framework is largely retained, Circle's payment network narrative will be further strengthened.

Economic significance: The US didn't suddenly become interested in crypto; rather, it's vying for the on-chain distribution of the dollar.

From an economic perspective, the stablecoin bill is not simply a cryptocurrency-friendly policy.

At its core is the global expansion right of dollar-denominated stablecoins.

Stablecoins are essentially an on-chain representation of the US dollar. As long as dollar-denominated stablecoins like USDC and USDT continue to expand in transactions, payments, RWA, cross-border settlements, and the AI agent economy, the US dollar can maintain its dominance in the new financial network.

This is why the direction of US regulation is not to completely ban stablecoins, but rather:

┌──────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. First, use GENIUS to confirm the release framework.
│ 2. Use CLARITY to confirm the market structure.
│ 3. Reintegrate on-chain finance into the US regulatory framework
│ 4. Enabling the continued global expansion of compliant USD stablecoins
└──────────────────────────────┘

Therefore, the significance of the CLARITY Act is not simply that "crypto companies will have fewer lawsuits," but rather that it gives compliant crypto assets the opportunity, for the first time, to systematically enter the mainstream US financial system.

This is a strategic advantage for Circle.

The pricing impact of CRCL: From interest rate stocks to internet stocks

Circle's Q1 2026 data shows that USDC circulation reached $77 billion, a year-on-year increase of 28%; on-chain transaction volume reached $21.5 trillion, a year-on-year increase of 263%; total revenue and reserve revenue were $694 million, a year-on-year increase of 20%; and Adjusted EBITDA was $151 million, a year-on-year increase of 24%. Circle also disclosed that its subsidiary ARC completed a $222 million presale, corresponding to a valuation of $3 billion.

These data suggest that Circle still relies on reserve income, but its growth narrative has begun to spill over.

┌──────────── Circle Current Model────────────┐
│ Reserve Income = USDC Size × Reserve Rate of Return │
└──────────────────────────────────────┘
┌──────────── Circle Future Model────────────┐
USDC Scale
│ + Compliance Premium
│ + Enterprise Payment Network
│ + Arc Ecology
│ + AI Agent Payment
└──────────────────────────────────────┘

This is the key impact of the stablecoin bill on Circle's pricing.

If the market only views Circle as a "stablecoin company that profits from US Treasury yields," then its valuation will be constrained by downward pressure on interest rates.

However, if the CLARITY Act makes it easier for USDC to enter payment, RWA, trading, DeFi, and AI agent scenarios, the market will start pricing Circle as "on-chain financial infrastructure for the US dollar."

These are two completely different valuation systems.

┌──────────── Old Valuation Framework ────────────┐
│ Core variable: Interest rate
│ Focus: Reserve income
Valuation Anchor: Financial Income Multiple
└─────────────────────────────────┘
┌──────────── New Valuation Framework ────────────┐
│ Core Variable: USDC Network Size
│ Focus areas: Payments, RWA, Arc, AI agent
Valuation Anchor: Financial Infrastructure + Network Platform Premium
└─────────────────────────────────┘

Price and trading framework: not the main focus of this article, but it determines the risk-reward ratio.

As of the time of my inquiry, CRCL's stock price was approximately $125, with a market capitalization of approximately $33 billion. This indicates that the market has already priced in some of the policy benefits and positive Q1 earnings reports, and the current situation is not a low-level reversal, but rather a high-volatility revaluation phase.

Sellers' target prices also showed significant divergence. Needham raised its target price to $150, JPMorgan to $155, and Mizuho to $135; MarketBeat aggregated data showed that CRCL's average target price was approximately $131.76, with a highest target price of $243 and a lowest target price of $60.

This illustrates the significant divergence of opinions in the market regarding Circle: conservatives view it as an overvalued stablecoin revenue stock, while optimists see it as on-chain infrastructure for the US dollar.

I would compress the CRCL pricing framework into this:

┌──────────────────┬────────────────────────┐
| Meaning of price range
├──────────────────┼────────────────────────┤
| $150 - $155 is a mainstream optimistic target range, suitable for phased cashing out.
$135 - $140 is a short-term resistance zone; a breakout with significant volume is needed.
| $116 - $120 First support zone, observe the pullback and support level.
| $108 - $112 is a deep pullback zone; consider small position size for evaluation.
The trend below $96 has been broken and a reassessment is needed.
└──────────────────┴────────────────────────┘

If we combine price and legislative progress:

┌────────────────────────────┬──────────────────┐
│ CRCL Pricing Response in Bill Scenario
├────────────────────────────┼──────────────────┤
The committee approved the terms, which moderately challenged the $135-$155 threshold.
The committee approved the proposal, but the terms were tightened, causing the price to initially rise before falling back to hold at $116.
│ The committee postponed the move to $108-$120.
| Committee unexpectedly fails, price falls below $108, risk increases
│ Clear overall pathway, market re-evaluation, $180+
└────────────────────────────┴──────────────────┘

Therefore, my trading strategy is not "blindly chasing highs," but a more suitable approach is:

┌──────────────────────────────┐
| Holder:
│ As long as the $116-$120 range holds,
Furthermore, the logic of the bill has not deteriorated, so it can be held.
│
│ New buyers:
Do not prioritize chasing the price higher between $135 and $140.
│ We'll see if the price-performance ratio improves after the pullback.
│
Risk Control:
If the price falls below $108, reduce position sensitivity.
If the price falls below $96, the medium-term trend needs to be reassessed.
└──────────────────────────────┘

This part only covers the execution framework at the transaction level; the real core remains how the bill will affect the long-term pricing of CRCL.

Impact on Coinbase and the industry: Positive but mixed.

The Clarity Act is also beneficial to Coinbase because it helps clarify token classification, the boundaries of exchange regulation, and the division of responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC. Reuters' summary of the bill also mentions that one of the key focuses of the Clarity Act is clarifying when a token falls under the categories of security, commodity, or other categories.

However, Coinbase's stock COIN is a complex asset, influenced by multiple factors such as trading volume, fees, custody, subscription services, and USDC distribution.

CRCL, on the other hand, is more pure.

If the main theme of the trade is "clarification of US stablecoin regulation", then CRCL is a more direct expression.

┌──────────────────┬────────────────────────┐
│ Asset Benefit Logic
├──────────────────┼────────────────────────┤
Circle: A Compliant Stablecoin + Payment Network
│ Coinbase Exchange with clear regulations + USDC distribution
│ RWA / Tokenization Compliance Portal Open
DeFi is becoming increasingly fragmented, with compliance requirements rising.
The banking sector faces pressure to replace stablecoin deposits.
└──────────────────┴────────────────────────┘

This is why I believe the biggest winners of the stablecoin bill are not all crypto projects, but infrastructure companies that are already on the path to compliance and can handle institutional funding and real-world payment scenarios.

In conclusion: The stablecoin bill deals with a "valuation status shift" of CRCL.

The short-term impact of the Clarity Act is to provide a policy catalyst for crypto stocks. However, its real impact on Circle is to change the market's valuation of it.

In the past, when the market looked at Circle, the core question was: How much interest can USDC reserves earn?
Looking ahead to the future market, the core question will be: Can USDC become the default settlement layer for on-chain dollar finance?

This is a completely different pricing logic, and my final judgment is:

┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│ 1. The committee has a high probability of passing the resolution on May 14th.
│ 2. The final legislation still depends on compromises between banks, AML, and political parties.
│ 3. The quality of the terms is more important than whether they are approved.
│ 4. Circle is the purest beneficiary of compliant stablecoins.
│ 5. CRCL is not cheap at the moment; it's advisable to wait for a pullback or breakout confirmation.
└──────────────────────────────────┘

If the CLARITY Act proceeds smoothly and the active stablecoin reward framework is retained, CRCL's valuation logic will continue to upgrade from an "interest-rate income company" to a "dollar-denominated on-chain financial infrastructure".

In the short term, stock prices may sell the news, but in the medium to long term, what the market truly reprices is not a single day's policy news, but a larger trend:

The US dollar is going onto the blockchain, and Circle is one of the companies in the US stock market that comes closest to creating a "US dollar on-chain operating system".

This is the core reason why I remain optimistic about Circle and CRCL.

火币社区经理：火币已于今年4月退出HUSD，正敦促HUSD发行方解决流动性问题

Popular Articles