Blockchain Association Rejects Proposal To Widen Stablecoin Yield Restrictions

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-12-21Last updated on 2025-12-21

Abstract

The Blockchain Association, along with over 125 crypto and fintech groups, is urging Senate Banking leaders to oppose efforts to expand a ban on stablecoin yields beyond what is explicitly stated in the GENIUS Act. The law prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying yields directly to holders but allows third-party platforms to offer rewards. The association argues that broadening the ban would harm competition and innovation, favoring larger financial firms. In contrast, banking groups, led by the American Bankers Association, are pushing for the ban to extend to partners and affiliates, warning that stablecoin rewards could circumvent the law and drain trillions from traditional bank deposits. The debate centers on consumer protection, financial stability, and the future competitive landscape of digital payments. Senate Banking staff are reviewing both sides as they consider potential legislative clarifications.

The Blockchain Association led a broad industry push this week, asking Senate Banking leaders to resist efforts that would widen a ban on stablecoin yields beyond what Congress wrote into law.

According to the association, the letter was signed by more than 125 crypto and fintech groups and companies and was sent to lawmakers to warn against reinterpreting the new rules in a way that would also bar exchanges and apps from offering rewards tied to stablecoin holdings.

Preserving Platforms’ Ability To Offer Rewards

The coalition’s argument rests on the text of the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law earlier this year by US President Donald Trump and explicitly bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield directly to holders.

Reports have disclosed that the statute nevertheless leaves room for third-party platforms to provide incentives, a distinction industry groups say is intentional and important for competition.

The letter pushes back against attempts to bar crypto platforms from offering yield to customers. Source: The Blockchain Association

Banks Call For Closing A Loophole

Banking groups have pushed back hard. A coalition led by the American Bankers Association and other banking trade groups asked Congress to clarify that the prohibition should extend to partners and affiliates, arguing that third-party rewards could circumvent the law and drain deposits from traditional banks.

According to recent coverage, Treasury analyses cited by bank advocates estimate that stablecoins could, in some scenarios, pull over $6 trillion from bank deposits — a figure that has become central to the banks’ case for tightening the rules.

What Industry Leaders Say

Industry spokespeople say expanding the ban would chill new services that rely on stablecoins and would tilt the market toward larger, incumbent financial firms that already control many payment rails.

BTCUSD currently trading at $88,063. Chart: TradingView

Based on reports, the Blockchain Association and partner groups contend that changing the law’s interpretation now would reopen negotiations the GENIUS Act resolved and would sow regulatory confusion before agencies finish writing implementing rules.

Competition And Consumer Choice At Stake

Supporters of stronger limits say the aim is consumer protection — to stop stablecoin arrangements from becoming de-facto interest accounts that could undermine the banking system and reduce loans to households and businesses.

Other observers point out the issue could also shape which firms win in payments going forward, since restrictions on rewards would affect the commercial incentives of exchanges and fintechs.

Next Steps In Washington

Senate Banking staff are weighing letters from both sides as they consider potential fixes or clarifying language during upcoming hearings.

Regulators who must implement the GENIUS Act have been urged to issue rules that prevent evasion of the ban, and lawmakers may face pressure to either leave the law as written or to craft narrow changes aimed at banks’ concerns.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is the main action taken by the Blockchain Association this week?

AThe Blockchain Association led a broad industry push by sending a letter to Senate Banking leaders, asking them to resist efforts to widen a ban on stablecoin yields beyond the text of the GENIUS Act.

QAccording to the coalition's argument, what does the GENIUS Act explicitly prohibit?

AThe GENIUS Act explicitly bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield directly to holders.

QWhy are banking groups, like the American Bankers Association, pushing for a broader interpretation of the ban?

ABanking groups argue that third-party rewards could circumvent the law and drain deposits from traditional banks, with estimates suggesting stablecoins could pull over $6 trillion from bank deposits in some scenarios.

QWhat is the potential market impact if the ban on stablecoin yields is expanded to third parties, according to industry spokespeople?

AIndustry spokespeople say expanding the ban would chill new services that rely on stablecoins and would tilt the market toward larger, incumbent financial firms that already control many payment rails.

QWhat are the next steps for Senate Banking staff regarding this issue?

ASenate Banking staff are weighing letters from both sides as they consider potential fixes or clarifying language during upcoming hearings.

Related Reads

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ru3h ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ru3h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片