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

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-01-14Actualizado a 2026-01-14

Resumen

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

Preguntas relacionadas

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.

Lecturas Relacionadas

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Access to Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal On June 12th, the U.S. government ordered AI company Anthropic to immediately suspend all foreign access—including foreign nationals within the U.S. and Anthropic's own foreign employees—to its newly released Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models, citing national security concerns. This forced Anthropic to temporarily disable access to both models for all users globally, as it cannot technically differentiate user nationality at scale. The models, released just three days prior, represent Anthropic's highest public capability tier. Fable 5 is the first publicly available model from the advanced "Mythos" family, while Mythos 5 is a less-restricted version for approved cybersecurity and critical infrastructure partners. The government's directive was reportedly triggered by claims from another company that it could "jailbreak" Mythos 5, raising alarm within the Trump administration. Anthropic, in a detailed public statement, strongly challenged this rationale. The company argues the demonstrated "jailbreak" is a narrow, non-generalized technique that merely involves identifying minor, known software vulnerabilities—a capability common to other publicly available models like OpenAI's GPT-5.5 and routinely used by cybersecurity defenders. Anthropic stated it has complied with the order but disagrees with the government's standard, warning that applying it industry-wide would halt all new frontier model deployments. The company criticized the lack of a transparent, fact-based legal process and expressed confidence the situation stems from a misunderstanding. It is working to restore access and will release more technical details within 24 hours. Other Anthropic models remain unaffected.

链捕手Hace 16 min(s)

U.S. Government Bans Foreign Nationals from Using Fable 5, Anthropic Issues Rebuttal

链捕手Hace 16 min(s)

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

**Raydium Exploit Reveals DeFi's Hidden Risk: Forgotten "Zombie" Contracts** A recent attack on Raydium's deprecated V3 AMM pools resulted in a loss of approximately $1.34 million. The hacker exploited pools that were no longer supported by Raydium's current UI or SDK but remained fully functional and accessible on-chain. This incident highlights a critical, often overlooked category of risk in DeFi: inactive or legacy smart contracts that projects fail to properly decommission. Since March 2025, there have been at least 8 publicly reported attacks targeting such abandoned contracts, with total losses around $10.8 million. Including older pools and deprecated features, the count rises to 10 incidents with roughly $22.5 million in losses. These "zombie contracts" represent a lifecycle management failure rather than a code vulnerability, yet they are typically misclassified under general "code bug" categories in security reports, masking the true scale of the problem. The root cause is that projects often merely document a contract as "deprecated" without taking essential technical steps to secure it: withdrawing remaining assets, disabling external call functions, and implementing ongoing monitoring. These forgotten, under-monitored components become prime targets for attackers. To address this, the industry needs to recognize "zombie contracts" as a distinct risk category and establish standardized decommissioning protocols. Essential steps should include: 1) a formal retirement announcement, 2) removal of all front-end integrations, 3) withdrawal of locked assets, 4) disabling key contract functions, 5) ongoing security monitoring, 6) clear user communication, and 7) a post-mortem analysis. The value of a DeFi project lies not only in its current TVL but also in the security of its historical codebase, which has now become a new attack surface.

Foresight NewsHace 2 hora(s)

The Revelation from the Raydium Theft Incident: New DeFi Vulnerabilities Lurking in Forgotten Old Contracts

Foresight NewsHace 2 hora(s)

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

Robots have started to 'consume data,' driving the formation of a new industrial supply chain focused on producing training data for embodied AI. Unlike large language models, which are trained on vast internet text corpora, embodied AI models face a 'data desert' in the physical world. This has created a massive demand for first-person perspective video data (Ego Data), captured by workers wearing cameras in places like Indian garment factories. Companies like Neocambrian AI are establishing 'data factories' where workers perform standardized tasks (e.g., sorting clothes, kitchen organization) to generate thousands of hours of video. Research, such as NVIDIA's EgoScale, demonstrates that scaling this human demonstration data predictably improves robot performance, particularly for dexterous manipulation. This has validated a training path combining large-scale human data for pre-training with smaller amounts of robot-specific data for fine-tuning. The value of different data types varies significantly, forming a 'data pyramid.' The base consists of low-cost, large-scale internet and Ego Data. Higher layers include more expensive motion-capture data (e.g., from data gloves), simulation/synthetic data, and the most costly and scarce layer: real robot teleoperation data. This demand has spawned a layered ecosystem of data suppliers: low-cost data factories, motion capture and alignment specialists, robot-native teleoperation service providers, simulation data companies, and platforms aiming for data standardization. Robot companies themselves are adopting a 'layered procurement' strategy: outsourcing generic Ego Data while building in-house capabilities for robot-specific adaptation data and the critical deployment/failure data generated in real-world applications. The industry is shifting focus from hardware and basic mobility to the data pipelines required for general-purpose capability. While parallels exist to data labeling companies like Scale AI in the LLM boom, the physical complexity of robot data—involving action success ambiguity and sim-to-real gaps—requires more integrated solutions for data collection, annotation, and a continuous feedback loop. The race is on to build the data engines that will teach robots to operate reliably in the unstructured real world.

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

Robots Begin to 'Consume Data': The Hidden Production Chain from Indian Data Factories to Billion-Dollar Humanoid Robots

marsbitHace 4 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片