A rule that stops a stablecoin issuer paying you a return does not delete the return. It relocates it, usually into a second product with a second set of documents. The number that used to sit on the balance is now a yield on a fund unit, a lending position or a programme called rewards. The reader’s job is to notice which of those they are actually holding.
What the rule restricts
Frameworks that treat a stablecoin as a means of payment rather than a deposit commonly restrict the issuer from paying a return on the outstanding balance. The reasoning is that a payment token promising interest starts to look like a deposit, and deposit-taking is a licensed activity with a guarantee attached.
The restriction usually lands on the issuer and on the reserve. It does not ban yield in the ecosystem. It bans the simplest version of it, where the balance itself accrues.
That distinction explains most of the product shelf. The token stays boring, and the yield moves one layer out.
Where the return went
The tokenised fund
The cleanest replacement is a fund unit holding short government debt. The holder owns a share of a portfolio rather than a claim on an issuer’s balance, and the yield is the portfolio’s yield net of fees. Tokenised Treasury products held $14.64B to $14.90B across 117 funds in October 2026 (RWA.xyz), and the seven-day annualised rate was 3.60% to 3.61% on 7 October 2026.
The lending venue
The second route is a lending market, where the return is a borrowing rate rather than an issuance policy. That rate moves with utilisation, which is why it can exceed a T-bill and can also fall to almost nothing when a pool is idle. Our note on lending rates and utilisation walks through the mechanism.
The rewards programme
The third route keeps the word stablecoin and adds a programme. Rewards may be paid in the issuer’s own token, in points, or as a rate that applies only to a promotional balance. The economics may be identical to interest. The disclosure is usually thinner, and that is the grey zone.
The 3.60% benchmark
3.60% to 3.61% is now the number to beat. It is a short-dated government yield, published with a date, reachable through a product that discloses its portfolio. A stablecoin programme offering more is offering something else alongside the dollar.
That comparison is the whole argument. A rewards rate well above the benchmark on a dollar balance is not automatically better than 3.61% on a fund unit. It is a different instrument with a different failure mode, and the page that advertises it rarely puts the two side by side.
The same discipline applies to the stablecoin itself. Total supply was $292.40B in October 2026, and who holds it is a separate question from what it earns.
The grey zone is the disclosure
Ask three questions of any rewards programme. What funds the payment: reserve income forgone, a token subsidy, or lending revenue? Who is the counterparty if the programme stops? And is the rate contractual or discretionary?
A programme that cannot answer the first question is being funded from somewhere you cannot see. That is not automatically unsafe. It is unpriceable, which for a treasury position is worse.
Compare net of fees, too. For instance, a 3.60% gross yield with half a point of fees nets 3.10%, and we check fee pages monthly because the gross number is the one that gets advertised.
| Where the return sits | What you actually hold | Rate and period |
|---|---|---|
| Tokenised Treasury fund | A fund unit backed by short government debt | 3.60% to 3.61% annualised, seven-day (RWA.xyz, 7 October 2026) |
| Ethereum staking | A claim on validator rewards | 2.63% gross in Q3 2026 (staking data, Q3 2026) |
| Solana delegation | A stake delegated to a validator | 5.99% gross, 4.6% to 7.6% net after commission (Solana staking data, Q3 2026) |
| Lending market | A claim on borrowers | Variable, set by pool utilisation |
| Rewards programme | Usually a promise, not an asset | Discretionary, and often undisclosed |
What to do next
Divide the balance into what is collateralised, what is promised and what is insured. The stablecoin is a claim on an issuer. The fund unit is a claim on a portfolio. The rewards programme is a promise, and it should be sized like one.
Then read the fee page before the marketing page, because the number that matters is net. If the programme will not tell you what funds it, treat the rate as zero for planning purposes and be pleasantly surprised.
The relocation is the story. Yield did not disappear from the dollar. It moved to products that ask you for identity documents and disclose a portfolio, and that is a fair trade to understand before you make it.
0 comments
No comments yet — ask a question and we will answer it here.