The GENIUS Act can drain $6.6T from U.S. banks – THIS is how

ambcryptoPublicado a 2026-01-08Actualizado a 2026-01-08

Resumen

The GENIUS Act of 2025 has drawn sharp criticism from major U.S. banks, warning it could drain $6.6 trillion from the banking system due to a regulatory loophole. Banking groups, including the Bank Policy Institute, argue that the act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest but allows crypto affiliate companies to offer high yields, effectively acting as shadow banks. This could trigger massive migration of deposits away from traditional banks, potentially restricting credit access for mortgages and business loans. Critics like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also opposed the act, fearing it enables a central bank digital currency (CBDC). As the stablecoin market grows—now valued at $317.8 billion—the yield loophole drives adoption. Closing it may reduce stablecoins’ appeal as high-return investments and revert them to payment tools, posing a critical question: whether Congress will act to eliminate this risk or allow crypto shadow banking to persist.

The ink is barely dry on the GENIUS Act of 2025, but a massive crack has already appeared, with the nation’s largest lenders claiming that the act could drain $6.6 trillion from the U.S. banking system.

In a letter to Congress on the 6th of January, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and a coalition of powerful banking groups issued a warning.

The letter highlighted a major loophole in the new stablecoin rules, one that lets crypto exchanges operate like high-yield shadow banks.

The chaos around the GENIUS Act

The GENIUS Act bans stablecoin issuers from paying interest, but banks say their affiliate companies are dodging the rule by offering yields that regular savings accounts could never match.

This has sparked fears of a major shift in how Americans store their money.

If stablecoins turn from a payment tool into a high-interest investment, the BPI warns it could trigger a deposit migration.

Such a shift wouldn’t just hurt bank balance sheets.

It could cut off credit to Main Street, making mortgages, business loans, and farm financing harder to get.

The tension isn’t new

During the floor debates leading up to the act’s passage in July 2025, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene emerged as a vocal critic, though for vastly different reasons.

She said,

“Back in July, I voted NO on the GENIUS Act because it contained a back door to a central bank digital currency (CBDC).”

Greene added,

“I support crypto but I will never support giving the government the ability to turn off your ability to have full control of your money and to buy and sell.”

And, to date, the loopholes seem not to have been addressed.

Recently, providing clarity on the GENIUS Act, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, noted,

“The problem with a GENIUS Act-like approach is that it is focused only on stablecoins, providing no way to balance competition between stablecoins and other payment mechanisms.”

However, as a solution, he further added,

“A better approach would have a comprehensive approach to regulation, i.e., a Clarity Act, and seek to put all traditional and digital payments and assets on a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may.”

Stablecoin market dynamics

Meanwhile, the total stablecoin market cap surged to $317.8 billion, dominated by Tether (USDT) and Circle’s USDC.

For perspective, USDT alone commanded a market cap of roughly $187 billion, while USDC has seen an aggressive 73% growth over the last year, reaching $75 billion.

As stablecoins continue to grow, the yield loophole has become their main driver of adoption, but closing it could trigger a major shift.

If Congress blocks exchanges from offering interest or rewards, stablecoins may lose their appeal as high-return savings alternatives and be forced back into their original role as simple payment tools.

Thus, this warning signals that crypto’s shadow-banking era is nearing its end, leaving one pressing question: if the rewards vanish, does the $317 billion stay?


Final Thoughts

  • The stablecoin loophole has officially escalated from a regulatory oversight to a systemic risk that banks can no longer ignore.
  • With $317 billion already parked in stablecoins, Congress must decide whether to shut the loophole or risk letting the crypto shadow banking system remain.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main concern raised by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe BPI warns that a loophole in the GENIUS Act could drain $6.6 trillion from the U.S. banking system by allowing crypto exchanges to operate like high-yield shadow banks, potentially triggering a massive deposit migration.

QHow are affiliate companies of banks reportedly circumventing the GENIUS Act's ban on stablecoin issuers paying interest?

AAffiliate companies are dodging the rule by offering yields on stablecoins that regular savings accounts could never match, effectively turning stablecoins into high-interest investments.

QWhat was one of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's primary reasons for voting against the GENIUS Act?

ARep. Greene voted against the act because she believed it contained a back door to a central bank digital currency (CBDC), which she opposes as it could give the government the ability to control individuals' money.

QAccording to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, what is the fundamental problem with the GENIUS Act's approach to regulation?

AHe stated that the problem is it focuses only on stablecoins and provides no way to balance competition between stablecoins and other payment mechanisms, advocating instead for a comprehensive 'Clarity Act' to create a level playing field.

QWhat is the potential consequence for the stablecoin market if Congress closes the loophole allowing exchanges to offer interest or rewards?

AIf Congress blocks exchanges from offering interest, stablecoins could lose their appeal as high-return savings alternatives and be forced back into their original role as simple payment tools, potentially destabilizing the $317 billion market.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Los retiros de Bitcoin continúan: 8 años de almacenamiento en una cartera fría Coldcard terminaron en cero

Retirada de bitcoin continúa: 8 años en cartera fría Coldcard terminan en cero La cartera hardware Coldcard ha sido vulnerada, provocando una nueva oleada de retiradas de fondos de dispositivos afectados. Galaxy Research informa que el volumen total robado asciende a 1.367,05 BTC (unos 88,6 millones de dólares) desde 4.585 direcciones, superando ampliamente los 594,5 BTC reportados inicialmente el 30 de julio de 2026. La mayor parte de lo robado permanece inactiva en las direcciones de los atacantes. El problema no reside en el firmware, que ya fue actualizado por Coinkite, sino en las frases semilla (seed phrases) generadas desde marzo de 2021 debido a un error de programación. Estas frases son fácilmente descifrables, y actualizar el firmware no las cambia. Solo transferir los fondos a una nueva dirección con una nueva frase semilla elimina la vulnerabilidad. El fallo se originó al integrar la biblioteca libNgU, lo que hizo que los dispositivos dejaran de usar el generador de números aleatorios por hardware STM32 y pasaran a usar el generador software Yasmarang, inicializado con datos públicamente accesibles como el número de serie del chip. Afecta a frases semilla creadas en dispositivos Mk2/Mk3 (firmware 4.0.1–4.1.9 y hasta 5.0.3), Mk4/Mk5 (hasta v5.6.0) y Q (hasta v1.5.0Q). Se excluyen aquellas creadas con al menos 50 lanzamientos de dados independientes o una passphrase BIP-39 fuerte y única. Los usuarios deben generar una nueva frase semilla en firmware corregido y transferir sus activos. Un caso ilustrativo es el de un inversor de 39 años que perdió 2 BTC (unos 130.000 dólares) en minutos, ahorrados durante ocho años mediante trabajo físico como protección contra la hiperinflación en su país, con el objetivo de una jubilación anticipada a los 50 años. Su estrategia conservadora de "comprar y mantener en frío" se vio truncada, dejándolo devastado y decidido a abandonar las criptomonedas. Este incidente recuerda vulnerabilidades históricas por generadores de números aleatorios débiles, como la de la biblioteca BitcoinJS (2011-2015), que causó grandes pérdidas. Subraya que el almacenamiento offline no garantiza automáticamente seguridad criptográfica, especialmente cuando la entropía se ve comprometida dentro del propio dispositivo "cerrado".

cryptonews.ruHace 4 hora(s)

Los retiros de Bitcoin continúan: 8 años de almacenamiento en una cartera fría Coldcard terminaron en cero

cryptonews.ruHace 4 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片