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

Foundation Steps Back, Ethlabs Steps Forward: Ethereum Undergoes Its Largest Restructuring in History

On June 23rd, the Ethereum ecosystem witnessed two major shifts, signaling a significant governance realignment. First, former Ethereum Foundation researchers established Ethlabs, a new independent non-profit. Backed by major ETH holders like Bitmine and SharpLink, Ethlabs aims to address practical needs for institutional adoption, including faster settlement, native asset issuance, cross-chain transactions, and mainnet scaling. Secondly, the Ethereum Foundation announced a major restructuring, laying off 54 employees (20% of its staff) to become a leaner entity focused on protocol governance and maintenance rather than being the primary builder. This move represents a pivotal correction. Criticisms had mounted over the Foundation's perceived slowness, lack of clear strategy, and over-reliance on Vitalik Buterin's influence. Ethlabs emerges as a more execution-oriented, "industrialized" layer focused on market adoption—bridging the gap between research and real-world use. Notably, Vitalik Buterin is absent from its list of supporters, interpreted as an intentional step to avoid excessive personal endorsement and allow the organization to build independent credibility. The Ethereum Foundation's downsizing and redefinition mark a retreat from its former central coordinating role. It now aims to share the "privilege of stewarding Ethereum" with other emerging groups like Ethlabs, the Ethereum Applications Guild, and The Ethereum Economic Zone. Analysts frame this dual shift as the Foundation ensuring Ethereum remains "correct" (credibly neutral), while Ethlabs must prove it remains "effective" (competitive and attractive for capital and adoption). This addresses community "shareholder-like anxiety" about ETH's market performance. While risks exist—such as concerns over shifting from Foundation centrality to large-holder influence—the consensus is that the greater risk for Ethereum was inaction, caught between technical idealism and organizational inertia. These steps aim to create a more multi-stakeholder, execution-driven future for the network.

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

Foundation Steps Back, Ethlabs Steps Forward: Ethereum Undergoes Its Largest Restructuring in History

链捕手Hace 6 hora(s)

Second Half of U.S. Crypto Policy: The Clarity Act Aims for 60 Votes, CFTC's "One-Person Commission" Becomes Biggest Variable

In a pivotal year for US crypto policy, the "CLARITY Act" is advancing in the Senate but faces a high hurdle, needing 60 votes to pass. Key challenges include bridging partisan divides on ethics and swaying undecided Republican senators within a tight legislative calendar of only about 40 working days. The policy "second half" involves intense negotiations on a broader framework for Web3 and DeFi, including crypto tax reforms and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. A significant uncertainty is the understaffed CFTC, operating with four commissioner vacancies, which complicates regulatory clarity. Meanwhile, the departure of key "crypto champions"—SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce and Senator Cynthia Lummis—will impact ongoing policy efforts. Industry experts are cautiously optimistic but realistic. Sara K. Weed notes that while progress is being made, CLARITY is unlikely to pass this Congress, pushing agencies like the SEC and CFTC to provide more guidance. Sulolit Mukherjee suggests meaningful crypto tax legislation is more likely to be attached to larger must-pass bills. Rashan Colbert discusses the jurisdictional debate over prediction markets, emphasizing the need for a regulatory framework that fosters their development as financial tools rather than treating them broadly as gambling. The clock is ticking, but opportunities remain for substantive progress through continued bipartisan dialogue and pragmatic efforts.

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Second Half of U.S. Crypto Policy: The Clarity Act Aims for 60 Votes, CFTC's "One-Person Commission" Becomes Biggest Variable

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Dan Koe's New Essay: Escaping the Fate of the Wage Slave, How to Survive the AI Replacement Wave?

Dan Koe argues that the true threat in the AI era isn't technology itself, but a reliance on others for one's livelihood and happiness. The core problem is "wage slavery"—spending life on unfulfilling work. To survive and thrive, one must escape this by building their own enterprise. The key is developing five elements: Agency (initiative), Taste (discernment), Persuasion, Persistence, and Iteration. These boil down to problem-solving skills and experiential knowledge, which cannot be learned passively but only through doing your own projects. The solution is to become "unemployable" by shifting your identity. This requires: 1) Radically changing your environment to force growth, 2) Choosing a medium (like content creation) that provides real feedback through trial and error, and 3) Mastering either code or, preferably, media (content). Content creation is more valuable because its subjective nature and need for human perspective create a durable advantage over generic AI output. To start, define your life's work by answering foundational questions about your innate knowledge, unique abilities, and contrarian beliefs. Then, immediately act by publishing your first piece of content. The cycle of creating, receiving feedback, and iterating is the essential path to developing the skills needed for an independent, meaningful career and financial resilience.

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Dan Koe's New Essay: Escaping the Fate of the Wage Slave, How to Survive the AI Replacement Wave?

marsbitHace 9 hora(s)

Research Report Analysis: Morgan Stanley Details SanDisk SNDK, The Truth About Cloud Data Center Pricing Power and AI Inference Benefits

Morgan Stanley raised its price target for SanDisk (SNDK) from $1100 to $1750 on June 22, maintaining an Overweight rating. The upgrade is driven by AI inference demand reshaping the NAND market, particularly for KV Cache and context window storage in cloud data centers. These cloud clients exhibit price inelasticity and sign long-term contracts, granting SanDisk significant pricing power. SanDisk's New Business Model (NBM) agreements, covering over one-third of FY27 bit shipments with 3-5 year terms and fixed price/price collar structures, are crucial. They are projected to sustain gross margins around 80% even at floor prices, providing a buffer against cyclical downturns. Morgan Stanley forecasts gross margins to surge from 30.3% in FY25 to 86.7% in FY27e. With NAND supply expected to remain tight into 2026/2027 and cloud/data centers becoming the largest end-market, SanDisk holds supply-side pricing power. The company targets 15-19% bit growth via technology transitions, not capacity expansion. Revenue is projected to grow ~6.6x from FY25 to FY27, with EPS rising from $2.74 to $14.73, driven by high-margin cloud business. Key upside catalysts include faster enterprise SSD adoption and edge AI growth. Downside risks involve slower industry growth, competitor capex increases, market share loss, and competition from Chinese players like YMTC. The investment thesis rests on AI-driven structural demand, NBM's margin protection, and sustained supply tightness. The $1750 target implies ~28x FY27e P/E.

marsbitHace 10 hora(s)

Research Report Analysis: Morgan Stanley Details SanDisk SNDK, The Truth About Cloud Data Center Pricing Power and AI Inference Benefits

marsbitHace 10 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片