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

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

The market's expectation for a September Fed rate hike surged dramatically in early August, jumping from under 50% to over 80% within a week. This shift followed a contentious July FOMC meeting, where a 9-3 vote to hold rates revealed growing dissent from hawkish members advocating for an immediate hike to combat persistent inflation. The primary catalyst for this repricing is rising oil prices, driven by renewed geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, which threaten global supply. Energy costs directly influence inflation metrics, making the upcoming July CPI report (due August 12th) a critical data point. If it shows inflation reaccelerating, the probability of a September hike will solidify. For Bitcoin and crypto assets, this is typically bearish news. Bitcoin continues to behave as a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. A rate hike raises the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets and could drive capital toward money markets, pressuring crypto prices in the short term. However, historical patterns suggest that if a hike is perceived as the end of a tightening cycle rather than the start, any negative price impact may be brief. U.S. stocks, particularly crypto-linked equities like Coinbase and growth-oriented tech stocks, are also vulnerable. Higher rates increase discount rates in valuation models, putting pressure on high-multiple companies. This coincides with a pivotal tech earnings season where investor focus has shifted from massive AI capital expenditure to tangible revenue and cash flow generation. Companies with negative cash flow and weak growth narratives could face heightened volatility if borrowing costs rise in September. In summary, a September Fed hike has evolved into a mainstream market scenario. Key factors to watch are oil prices, the July CPI report, and Fed communications, which will determine the final decision and its impact on volatile crypto and equity markets.

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Will the Fed Definitely Raise Interest Rates in September? How Will Crypto and U.S. Stocks Withstand the Pressure?

marsbitHace 30 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片