Clash Over Stablecoin Legislation: Big Banks Vs. The Crypto Industry

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-14Last updated on 2026-01-14

Abstract

The Senate Banking Committee's updated crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) has sparked a new battle over the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulation. Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger claims the "Big Bank lobby" is pressuring Congress to revisit settled stablecoin reward legislation to suppress competition, not due to emerging risks. She argues that big banks, controlling assets equivalent to 60% of US GDP, offer low savings yields (0.39%) compared to the Federal Funds rate (3.50%-3.75%), and lobby against technologies providing better consumer returns by invoking "systemic risk" claims. Expert Omid Malekan criticized the notion that stablecoin holders shouldn't earn yields, advocating that interest from Treasury bills should benefit average Americans rather than bank executives. He cited JPMorgan's $25 billion net interest income as evidence of banks profiting from low saver returns, dismissing concerns that interest-paying stablecoins would harm lending. Both advocate for policies prioritizing consumer choice and fair returns.

As the Senate Banking Committee unveiled the updated draft of the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, another critical battle is unfolding surrounding the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulations. The banking lobby is pressing for significant changes, particularly regarding stablecoin rewards.

Are Big Banks Disrupting Stablecoin Competition?

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association and a prominent advocate for the crypto industry in Congress negotiations, took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to highlight the current state of discussions following the bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act.

She claimed that the “Big Bank lobby” is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation concerning stablecoin rewards, not due to emerging risks but rather to suppress competition that benefits consumers.

Mersinger stated, “When Big Banks face competition, they don’t improve services. They lobby to handicap alternatives. And the consumer suffers.”

The firm’s CEO pointed out that the average American savings account currently yields only 0.39%, while checking accounts offer an even lower rate of 0.07%. In contrast, the Federal Funds rate hovers between 3.50% and 3.75%.

She argued that this discrepancy is not merely a product of market forces but stems from a substantial barrier that the major banks have constructed, preventing customers from accessing better returns.

Mersinger emphasized that the dominance of the six largest US banks, which control assets equivalent to 60% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), only reinforces this trend.

She further stressed that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the banks’ immediate response is to invoke claims of “systemic risk” while lobbying against these advancements.

Ultimately, Mersinger and her colleagues are advocating for policies that prioritize consumer options. “We urge Congress to listen,” she implored, signaling the importance of the ongoing debate between the two sectors.

Expert Advocates For Fair Returns

Market expert Omid Malekan also weighed in, criticizing the notion that stablecoin holders should not earn yields, arguing that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans rather than lining the pockets of bank executives and shareholders.

Malekan called for a broader discussion on capping credit card interest rates and swipe fees, along with the implementation of a windfall profit tax on the net interest margins of banks. He asserted, “An industry this anti-competition and consumer choice should suffer the consequences.”

Support for Malekan’s view was reinforced by recent earnings reports from major banks. This morning, JPMorgan Chase announced $25 billion in net interest income, illustrating the profits generated by not providing higher returns to savers. Malekan dismissed claims that stablecoins paying interest would harm lending as unfounded.

The daily chart shows the surge in the total crypto market cap on Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main conflict described in the article regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe main conflict is between the big bank lobby and the crypto industry. The banking lobby is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation on stablecoin rewards, which the crypto industry argues is an attempt to suppress competition rather than address any emerging risks.

QAccording to Summer Mersinger, what is the average yield on a US savings account and how does it compare to the Federal Funds rate?

AAccording to Summer Mersinger, the average US savings account yields 0.39% and the average checking account yields 0.07%. This is in stark contrast to the Federal Funds rate, which is between 3.50% and 3.75%.

QWhat argument does Omid Malekan make about who should benefit from the interest revenue generated by Treasury bills?

AOmid Malekan argues that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans, rather than going to bank executives and shareholders.

QWhat recent financial report was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers?

AA recent earnings report from JPMorgan Chase, which announced $25 billion in net interest income, was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers.

QWhat does Summer Mersinger claim is the typical response from big banks when new technologies offer consumers better returns?

ASummer Mersinger claims that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the big banks' immediate response is to invoke claims of 'systemic risk' while lobbying against these advancements.

Related Reads

Luxury Cars Become Targets, Families Used as Pawns: Crypto 'Wrench Attacks' Sweep Across Europe and America

In a significant U.S. federal case, 22-year-old Saif Faiq of Missouri pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, related to an attempted Bitcoin theft and the kidnapping of two individuals in Danbury, Connecticut. Prosecutors state the 2024 plot targeted the parents of a person involved in a separate large-scale Bitcoin theft, intending to use them as hostages to coerce the transfer of crypto assets. Faiq's role involved recruiting accomplices and surveillance. This case, involving a Lamborghini Urus carjacking, exemplifies the growing threat of "wrench attacks"—physical violence and coercion to steal cryptocurrency—where a holder's family, vehicles, and visible wealth become targets. The guilty plea, alongside that of co-conspirator Adam Iza, marks the formal entry of such crypto-related violent crimes into the U.S. federal judiciary. It highlights that while blockchain technology itself is secure, the human endpoint is vulnerable. Attackers leverage personal connections and luxury items as indicators of crypto wealth to plan kidnappings and extortion. Though this case occurred in the U.S., Europe remains the epicenter for such attacks. CertiK's 2026 report notes 34 confirmed wrench attacks in the first four months of 2026, with 82% occurring in Europe, primarily France, causing an estimated $101 million in losses. The Danbury case serves as a stark warning for crypto holders globally: operational security must now extend beyond digital threats to include physical safety, privacy of personal information, and protection of family members from becoming leverage in extortion schemes. Faiq's sentencing on August 28 will be a key indicator of the judicial response to this emerging crime pattern.

marsbit31m ago

Luxury Cars Become Targets, Families Used as Pawns: Crypto 'Wrench Attacks' Sweep Across Europe and America

marsbit31m ago

U.S.-Israel-Iran Conflict Surpasses 100 Days: Is Asset Unfreezing a Key to Reconciliation?

**Title: U.S.-Israel-Iran Conflict Surpasses 100 Days; Key to Reconciliation Lies in Unfreezing Assets?** **Summary:** As the conflict between the U.S./Israel and Iran enters its 103rd day, peace talks remain stalled. A central sticking point in the negotiations is the fate of approximately $240 billion in Iranian assets frozen by the United States. This includes around $1 billion in cryptocurrency assets, such as USDT, BTC, and ETH, which were seized as part of U.S. sanctions. Iran has outlined a four-phase plan for a potential deal, with the second phase demanding the immediate unfreezing of at least 50% of its assets upon signing an initial agreement, and the remainder within one to two months. However, the U.S., particularly President Trump, has firmly rejected any preemptive release of funds, viewing them as crucial leverage for future negotiations on Iran's nuclear program. The Trump administration's approach is described as unpredictable, mixing tough rhetoric with offers of talks. Meanwhile, the U.S. is reportedly considering using the frozen Iranian assets to fund reconstruction in affected Gulf countries. While both sides express a desire to end the conflict, the deep-seated issue of the frozen assets, alongside broader geopolitical tensions, suggests a prolonged period of "fighting while talking" is likely to continue. The article concludes that the conflict's primary impact on cryptocurrency markets is macro-level, with minimal direct selling pressure on specific assets like BTC or ETH.

marsbit35m ago

U.S.-Israel-Iran Conflict Surpasses 100 Days: Is Asset Unfreezing a Key to Reconciliation?

marsbit35m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片