Blockchain Association Rejects Proposal To Widen Stablecoin Yield Restrictions

bitcoinistPublicado a 2025-12-21Actualizado a 2025-12-21

Resumen

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

Preguntas relacionadas

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.

Lecturas Relacionadas

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片