Things have been constantly changing in the last 24 hours. Banks, a major compliant platform, the Democratic Party, and internal Congress members are negotiating repeatedly, trying to bring back this nearly failed crypto bill. But frankly, the core issue isn't technical—it's about how the money should be divided.

Currently, the controversy centers around three key issues.

First is the distribution of yields for stablecoins. Banks don't want stablecoins to carry yield attributes, while a major platform wants to retain this space, and the Democratic Party is worried it could turn into a shadow banking system. The three parties are still tugging, and no conclusion has been reached yet.

Second is the regulatory authority over on-chain securities. The draft gives the SEC and the CFTC room to research and formulate rules, but the industry has exploded in response, and now there are voices suggesting this part could be modified or removed.

The third issue concerns the ethical boundaries of compliance and monitoring—balancing privacy protection, asset custody, and regulatory authority. The White House and the Senate are engaged in a tug-of-war here, but the overall direction remains unchanged.

What is truly alarming isn't that the bill is stuck, but how it is stuck. The current market narrative is that as long as these three parties reach an agreement on stablecoin yields, the bill can survive. Just think about what this implies—there are no voices from DeFi, developers, or users at the negotiation table. The only concern is who can legally access these yields and who is kept out. Instead of designing the future financial system, it seems more like creating a compliant pathway to absorb the existing financial order.