Your editorial “The Crypto Lobby Objects” (Review & Outlook, Aug. 7) argues for stricter limits on stablecoin rewards because such payments may pull deposits from small banks. That concern is fair, and community banks matter to the towns that borrow from them. But it is only one side of the coin. Section 10404(b) of the Clarity Act warns that deposit-like payments may inhibit the work banks do for the economy, yet also calls activity-based rewards “critical to enabling innovation, competition, and consumer adoption.”

These aims aren’t mutually exclusive. Rewards are how stablecoin platforms compete for the funds customers hold and move, and too tight a limit would blunt competition that could make moving money cheaper for ordinary Americans.

The fault lies with neither banks nor platforms, but with Congress. The central question is whether a reward is “economically or functionally equivalent” to interest on a bank deposit, a test the bill never defines. Your own example, 5% cash back for loyalty-program members who keep a $1 minimum balance, may well survive that test. But the bill names loyalty programs both among the rewards it permits and among those it forbids. Nobody can yet say which applies.

Rather than draw that line, the bill would leave this quagmire to agency rule-making. In the meantime, it is worth remembering that every coin—even a digital one—has two sides.