The CLARITY Act pop \u2013 and what Wall Street is really pricing<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Circle\u2019s stock has been on a tear since U.S. senators finally hammered out a compromise on the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act, resolving months of hand\u2011wringing over whether stablecoins could still offer rewards. A March leak that hinted at a near\u2011total ban on yield sent Circle tumbling almost 20% intraday, as traders modeled a world where USDC looked a lot like a checking account with none of the kickbacks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new text is gentler: passive, savings\u2011account\u2011style yield on stablecoin balances is out, but activity\u2011based rewards for payments, trading, or providing liquidity live to fight another cycle. That was enough to flip the mood. Circle has rallied back toward its late\u20112025 levels, gaining roughly 30% over a handful of sessions as volumes spiked and analysts started talking again about \u201cregulatory overhang\u201d finally clearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That pop hides a tough reality: more than 95% of Circle\u2019s revenue still comes from interest on USDC reserves, and that revenue stream is hypersensitive to both the Fed and the fine print on what counts as \u201cyield.\u201d The CLARITY Act didn\u2019t magically create a new business model; it simply told markets that the existing one isn\u2019t getting nuked \u2014 yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Circle\u2019s Q1: a three\u2011layer stack with one fat middleman<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Circle\u2019s latest quarterly report, its third since going public, put hard numbers on something the market had mostly hand\u2011waved: just how thin the actual issuance margins are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The biggest winner in this setup is Coinbase. Under a long\u2011standing agreement, 100% of the reserve interest for USDC held on Coinbase goes to Coinbase; for off\u2011platform USDC, the two sides split the interest 50\u201150. Coinbase held about 19 billion dollars of USDC in Q1, roughly a quarter of the supply, implying close to 660 million dollars a year in essentially risk\u2011free, capital\u2011light income \u2014 a gross margin that embarrasses even the exchange\u2019s own trading\u2011fee business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, about 80% of incremental USDC since February has flowed to Sky, Binance, and Ethena, who also negotiate their cut of the reserve income. Circle\u2019s retained share \u2014 its RLDC margin \u2014 has basically flat\u2011lined around 38% to 41% over the past three years, even as revenue compounded at more than 60% annually. Put differently: the top line scales; the take\u2011home is contract\u2011capped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Circle\u2019s answer to this is a three\u2011layer stack:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arc inverts the traditional Layer\u20111 playbook: network activity boosts the velocity and circulating balance of USDC, not the price of a native gas token, and the incremental float cycles back into reserve interest revenue. Circle\u2019s long\u2011term target of 40% compound USDC growth explicitly excludes any Arc upside \u2014 a nice way of telling investors that the base case is still \u201cwe run a massive, regulated money\u2011market\u2011fund\u2011in\u2011all\u2011but\u2011name.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why this stack doesn\u2019t copy\u2011paste to Asia<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hong Kong makes the contrast visible, but the same logic extends more broadly across Asia. Under Hong Kong\u2019s regime, reserve assets for licensed stablecoin issuers must sit mainly in highly liquid, low-risk instruments with short tenors, which puts a ceiling on interest income that is lower than the one available to a dollar issuer sitting on U.S. short-end rates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second constraint is distribution. Asia does not have a Coinbase-scale retail and exchange powerhouse capable of centralizing stablecoin balances and turning distribution into a profitable rent-extraction machine for both issuer and partner; instead, liquidity and customer flow are fragmented across licensed venues and local payment networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third constraint is stack ownership. Most Asian issuers do not control an Arc-like public chain that can recycle transaction activity back into stablecoin demand, so even if they replicate issuance they usually do not capture the upside from the network layer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is why Hong Kong\u2019s first licensed issuers do not treat the token as a standalone product. The HKMA granted the first stablecoin issuer licenses on April 10, 2026 to HSBC and Anchorpoint Financial, and both are tying their Hong Kong dollar stablecoins to existing payment or distribution networks rather than presenting issuance as an independent margin pool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n HashKey is useful here not as a model answer but as an illustration of the trade-offs facing Hong Kong platforms that want broader exposure to the stablecoin stack. The group combines a licensed virtual-asset trading platform with tokenization efforts, on- and off-ramp services and HashKey Chain, its own network for institutional and real-world-asset activity, which means it is not relying solely on reserve-income economics to justify its strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that full-stack approach is also capital-intensive and far from settled. Every additional layer \u2014 exchange, issuance ambitions, tokenization and chain infrastructure \u2014 requires sustained investment, and the payoff depends on whether network activity and enterprise adoption arrive fast enough to offset the now-better-understood thinness of issuance margins. In that sense, HashKey does not disprove the article\u2019s thesis; it reinforces it by showing that Hong Kong players appear to be searching for value beyond the stablecoin float itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Singapore case: regulation first, market reaction second<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n To broaden the article beyond Hong Kong, Singapore offers a useful counterpoint precisely because it does not validate the CLARITY-Act trade. The Monetary Authority of Singapore regulates digital-asset activity primarily through the Payment Services Act, under which digital payment token providers operate as licensed major payment institutions, while exchange-style and capital-markets activities may sit under separate licenses and approvals. As of January 2026, MAS had granted 36 major payment institution licenses for digital payment token services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MetaComp shows how Singapore is quietly building the kind of infrastructure business that is less sensitive to U.S. stablecoin politics than a name like Circle. Licensed by MAS as a Major Payment Institution for digital payment token services, MetaComp is structured less like a leveraged bet on a single token and more like a platform for institutions that need to move between fiat and crypto inside a regulated perimeter. Its offerings span exchange and OTC trading, fiat payment gateways, custody, prime brokerage and asset management, while its parent, MetaVerse Green Exchange, also holds recognized market operator and capital markets services licenses under Singapore\u2019s Securities and Futures Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That licensing stack matters more than headline legislation from Washington. MetaComp\u2019s business is built around flows, spreads and service fees tied to custody, trading and infrastructure, not around capturing reserve income from a single branded stablecoin; when Circle rallies on CLARITY headlines, MetaComp\u2019s core value proposition changes very little because clients still need compliant ramps, custody and execution regardless of how the latest U.S. bill is worded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Singapore also illustrates the stock-price point by absence. There is no obvious Singapore-listed, MAS-licensed digital-asset exchange whose shares have re-rated in tandem with U.S. excitement over the CLARITY Act, because Singapore\u2019s regulated crypto ecosystem is built around private infrastructure providers and institutional platforms rather than a public equity pure-play stablecoin issuer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That absence is analytically useful. If the Asian thesis were simply a lagged version of the U.S. thesis, one would expect a Singapore-listed crypto infrastructure proxy to rise on the same regulatory optimism that lifted Circle; instead, the investable market proxies remain either private, diversified or only indirectly exposed to digital-asset infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The stock comparison that supports the thesis<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Circle\u2019s recent stock move is a policy-beta trade: investors are repricing the odds that U.S. regulation preserves the economics of rewards, distribution and USDC scale. By contrast, the closest Singapore-listed exchange benchmark, Singapore Exchange Ltd., is not a crypto VASP and its valuation is driven by broader capital-markets activity rather than stablecoin policy headlines, which is exactly the point: Asia\u2019s market structure does not offer a listed equivalent for investors to trade as a \u201cCLARITY Act beneficiary.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words, U.S. policy can produce a visible equity response because the U.S. has a listed issuer whose economics are tightly linked to reserve income, distributor relationships and future network optionality. Singapore has licensed infrastructure, but not the same public-market expression of stablecoin issuance economics, and Hong Kong\u2019s better-known platforms are being pushed by strategy toward ramps, custody, tokenization, payments and enterprise distribution rather than by the reserve spread alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Asia\u2019s moat sits in corridors, licenses and rails<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Seen across both Hong Kong and Singapore, the Asian opportunity is not to mint a local version of USDC and wait for reserve income to compound. It is to own the corridor: the fiat in-and-out ramp, the compliance perimeter, the custody layer, the settlement flow and the regulated access points connecting banks, corporates and exchanges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is also why Hong Kong\u2019s applicant pool and Singapore\u2019s licensing posture look more alike than they first appear. In Hong Kong, applicants such as Ant Group, JD Chain and Lianlian are targeting cross-border settlement, e-commerce and supply-chain use cases, while in Singapore the regulator has allowed licensed firms to build institutional digital-asset businesses only inside tightly supervised perimeters. In both places, the value accrues to the infrastructure stack around the token, not to issuance in isolation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lead and nut graph recommendation<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If the article is being rewritten for publication, the cleanest framing is to lead with Circle\u2019s U.S. rally and immediately argue that Asia did not \u2014 and structurally could not \u2014 react the same way. That allows the headline thesis to do real work: the CLARITY Act may have boosted Circle because the U.S. still prices stablecoins through issuance economics, but Asia\u2019s regulated market leaders are being built around payment corridors, licenses and compliant rails instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blockwind.io\/hk-en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-1.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blockwind.io\/hk-en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/image-2.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n