Banks’ Concerns Over Stablecoin Interest Payments Are ‘Totally Absurd’, Circle CEO Says

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-01-23Actualizado a 2026-01-23

Resumen

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed banking industry concerns over interest payments on stablecoins as "totally absurd," arguing that fears of massive deposit flight are unfounded. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, he compared stablecoin rewards to other common financial products like credit cards, emphasizing their role in customer engagement rather than systemic risk. Allaire countered bank claims that stablecoins could drain up to $6 trillion in deposits, noting that similar concerns emerged with money market funds yet lending continued unaffected. He highlighted the shift toward private credit and capital markets, asserting that stablecoins should function as safe, regulated cash instruments while lending evolves independently through new models.

The CEO of stablecoin issuer Circle has weighed in on the importance of stablecoin rewards and why he believes the banking industry’s concerns about interest payments on these assets are “absurd.”

Circle CEO Rejects Banks’ Stablecoin Fears

Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Circle’s CEO, Jeremy Allaire, discussed banks’ growing concerns that paying interest on stablecoins poses a threat to the industry, calling the deposit flight narrative “totally absurd.”

The banking sector has expressed concerns about stablecoin rewards, arguing that interest payments will distort market dynamics and affect credit creation. In the US, banks have heavily criticized the GENIUS Act, claiming that it has loopholes that could pose risks to the financial system.

The executive rejected the sector’s general arguments, citing historical and practical reasons. He asserted that this exact argument has been historically used when new financial products, such as government money market funds, have emerged.

Notably, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan recently compared the digital assets to money market mutual funds, which require reserves to be held in short-term instruments, such as US Treasuries, reducing lending capacity in the system.

The executive told investors that the banking sector, small- and medium-sized businesses in particular, could face significant challenges if the US Congress does not prohibit interest-bearing stablecoins, as up to $6 trillion in deposits, or 30% to 35% of all US commercial bank deposits, could flow out of the banking system and into the stablecoin sector.

However, Allaire pointed out that, despite institutions claiming that financial products would “draw all the deposit base,” their growth has not “stopped the ability for lending to happen.”

The importance Of Rewards

Circle’s CEO also argued that stablecoins should not be singled out when rewards for other financial products exist and contribute to the system. “Those rewards (...) exist in every balance that you have with a credit card that you use. They exist around so many other financial products and services that we have,” he detailed.

“These rewards are actually very important,” Allaire continued. “They help with stickiness, they help with customer traction. They are not themselves like these huge monetary policy dampers.”

Most importantly, he pointed out that lending is moving away from the risk-taking of banks, with “a huge amount of lending is moving towards private credit.”

He cited a Wednesday WEF panel, in which a capital markets participant highlighted how the vast majority of GDP growth in the United States was “formed by capital market formation around junk bonds.”

“So private credit issuing junk bonds, capitalizing the build out of the American technology advancements, not bank credit,” the executive added.

Previously, Coinbase Institute shared a similar argument, affirming that “credit is evolving, not shrinking. Lending is shifting to private credit, fintech, and DeFi channels that don’t depend on deposits. Liquidity moves—it doesn’t vanish.”

Allaire concluded that “we want stablecoin money to be cash instrument money, prudentially supervised, very, very safe money. And then I think what we want to do is we want to build models for lending that build on top of stablecoins.”

The total crypto market capitalization is at $2.98 trillion in the one-week chart. Source: TOTAL on TradingView

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire's view on banks' concerns about interest payments on stablecoins?

AJeremy Allaire calls the banking industry's concerns about interest payments on stablecoins 'totally absurd' and rejects the narrative that they pose a threat to the industry or will cause significant deposit flight.

QAccording to the banking sector, what risk does the GENIUS Act pose?

ABanks have criticized the GENIUS Act, claiming it has loopholes that could distort market dynamics, affect credit creation, and pose risks to the overall financial system.

QWhat historical financial product does Allaire compare stablecoins to when refuting the banks' arguments?

AAllaire compares stablecoins to government money market funds, which also faced similar criticisms when they emerged, yet their growth did not stop the ability for lending to happen.

QHow much in bank deposits could potentially flow into the stablecoin sector according to the concerns raised by bank executives?

ABank executives warned that up to $6 trillion in deposits, or 30% to 35% of all US commercial bank deposits, could flow out of the banking system and into the stablecoin sector if interest-bearing stablecoins are not prohibited.

QWhere does Jeremy Allaire argue that lending is increasingly moving towards?

AAllaire argues that a huge amount of lending is moving away from traditional banks and towards private credit, fintech, and DeFi channels, citing the growth of the junk bond market as an example of capital formation that doesn't rely on bank credit.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

**Title: Has the "Digital Gold" Narrative for Bitcoin Failed?** The article argues that Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative remains valid despite a recent sharp price decline (from a peak near $126k in Oct 2025 to briefly under $61k in Feb 2026). It presents a long-term investment framework based on three core points: **1. Viewing Bitcoin as an Asset:** Bitcoin is presented as a superior potential store of value compared to gold. Key arguments are its absolute scarcity (21 million cap), superior portability, and transparent auditability via its public ledger. While acknowledging its current use in early, volatile stages (~3-4% global adoption), the author draws parallels to the early, disruptive phases of the internet and e-commerce. **2. Understanding the Recent Downturn:** The current ~50% correction is framed as a predictable, consensus-driven cycle following its post-halving peak (the 2024 halving preceded the Oct 2025 high). A crucial factor is a historic "changing of hands": the influx of new institutional buyers via ETFs allowed early, low-cost holders (miners, OG believers) to take profits. The author notes that while severe, Bitcoin's historical drawdowns (e.g., 93% in 2011, 77% in 2021-22) have been progressively smaller, suggesting maturing holder structure and decreasing volatility over time. **3. The Long-Term Perspective:** The long-term thesis hinges on Bitcoin capturing a portion of gold's market value. With Bitcoin's market cap at ~$1.4 trillion (at $70k) versus gold's ~$20 trillion, significant upside potential exists if the "digital gold" narrative is partially realized. However, the author strongly cautions that short-term risks remain, the bottom is unpredictable, and high volatility is inherent. The real risk is not Bitcoin failing but poor personal position management (over-leverage, wrong capital) and a lack of deep understanding, which can force investors out during severe downturns. The conclusion uses Amazon's 95% crash post-2000 dot-com bubble and subsequent 42x recovery as an analogy. The ultimate question is not if Bitcoin's price will rise, but if an investor's strategy and conviction can withstand the volatility to see the long-term play out. The recent divergence (gold up, Bitcoin down) is posed not as a narrative failure, but as potential evidence of this ongoing, painful transition from a speculative asset to a mainstream allocation.

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

marsbitHace 3 hora(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

The article discusses Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, its recent price drop, and long-term outlook through the perspective of "Jason". It argues the narrative is not a failure but that Bitcoin represents a superior, new asset class due to its fixed supply (21 million), portability, and auditability. The piece compares its current ~3-4% global adoption rate to early internet/e-commerce, suggesting significant growth potential. Regarding the 2025-2026 price decline (from ~$126k to briefly under $61k), the author views it as a predictable, consensus-driven sell-off within Bitcoin's ~4-year cycle post-halving, exacerbated by a major "handover" from early, low-cost holders to new institutional buyers via ETFs. A key observation is that historical peak-to-trough drawdowns have lessened over time (e.g., 93% in 2011 to ~50% in 2026), indicating maturing volatility as holder structure changes. For the long term, the author uses a simple framework: Bitcoin's total market cap (~$1.4T at $70k) is only about 7% of gold's (~$20T). Even capturing 30-50% of gold's value would imply substantial upside. However, the article strongly cautions against viewing this as investment advice, emphasizing extreme volatility and the critical importance of risk management, position sizing, and deep fundamental understanding to survive severe drawdowns. It concludes by drawing a parallel to Amazon's 95% crash in 2000 and subsequent 42x recovery, stressing that the key is surviving market cycles to realize long-term potential.

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

链捕手Hace 3 hora(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

"From Code to Cognition: The Evolution of Robot Brains" The journey of robotic intelligence has shifted dramatically from manually coded systems to AI-driven brains. For decades, robots relied on layered software stacks—perception, state estimation, planning, control—each handcrafted. While predictable, they lacked adaptability. The 2010s saw deep learning revolutionize perception (e.g., object detection) and control (via reinforcement learning), but learned skills remained narrow. The arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) marked a turning point. LLMs acted as high-level planners, interpreting natural language instructions and generating sequences of actions for traditional robotic systems to execute. However, true integration came with Visual-Language-Action (VLA) models, which fused vision, language, and motion prediction into a single network. Pioneered by models like RT-2 and open-source projects like OpenVLA, VLAs enable robots to reason and act directly from visual input and commands. The most advanced humanoid robots now employ a "dual-brain" architecture: a slow-thinking, large VLA (System 2) for reasoning and planning, and a fast-reacting, small network (System 1) for high-frequency motion control, sometimes with an even lower-level System 0 for balance. This split balances cognition with the physics of real-time movement. Computation is split between onboard hardware (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson) for safety-critical control loops and cloud/edge servers for non-critical tasks like learning and interfaces. A crucial driver is the open-source ecosystem—models like GR00T and OpenVLA allow startups to build upon pre-trained brains and fine-tune them with their own data, accelerating development. Despite progress, current systems struggle with recovery from errors, sample inefficiency, and long-horizon tasks. This has spurred the rise of **World Models**—neural networks that predict the consequences of actions. By simulating possible futures before acting (like NVIDIA Cosmos or Meta V-JEPA), robots can plan, recover, and generalize better. This represents the next frontier: shifting intelligence from learned reactions to an internal model of physics and cause-and-effect. The field is rapidly evolving. While not yet at its "ChatGPT moment," the convergence of cheaper hardware, scalable simulation, and world models points toward robots that are increasingly capable, adaptive, and useful. The question is shifting from "what can robots do?" to "what *should* they do?"

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

AI Bubble Is Bursting

The AI Bubble is Bursting: A Necessary Purge on the Path to Ubiquitous Intelligence Market volatility has reignited debates about an AI bubble, with figures like Ray Dalio pointing to high valuations. However, this parallels the dot-com bubble, which, despite its crash, laid the physical infrastructure for today's internet era. The current AI investment frenzy, with tech giants planning trillions in infrastructure spending far outstripping current AI application revenues, appears similarly imbalanced. This 'bubble' is seen as an inevitable phase for a disruptive technology, paying the "innovation tax." Critically, AI inference costs have plummeted over 99.7% since 2023, making intelligence nearly free at the margin. This hasn't reduced spending but has instead unlocked massive new demand, as seen in enterprise AI cloud expenditure tripling. This follows the Jevons Paradox: efficiency gains lead to greater total consumption. The market is now entering a cleansing phase, weeding out speculative ventures lacking real moats. The deeper shift is a move from capital expenditure (CapEx) on hardware to value creation in operational expenditure (OpEx) through AI applications that solve real industry problems. While infrastructure valuations are high, rapid earnings growth from widespread AI adoption across sectors—from manufacturing and finance to law and healthcare—may digest these valuations over time. Ultimately, this creative destruction will leave behind robust infrastructure and optimized models, cheaply powering an AI-augmented future for all industries, much as the internet became indispensable after its own bubble burst. The core productive potential remains undiminished.

链捕手Hace 4 hora(s)

AI Bubble Is Bursting

链捕手Hace 4 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片