Blockchain Association says no to expanding stablecoin yield prohibition

cointelegraphPubblicato 2025-12-19Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-12-19

Introduzione

The Blockchain Association, along with over 125 crypto industry groups, has written to the US Senate Committee on Banking opposing a proposed expansion of the ban on offering yield rewards to stablecoin holders. The letter argues that extending the prohibition—originally targeting stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act to include third-party platforms—would stifle innovation, increase market concentration, and unfairly disadvantage crypto services compared to traditional financial providers like banks and credit card companies that offer similar rewards. The Association contends that stablecoin rewards help consumers offset inflation and are a standard feature of competitive markets. It also challenges banking industry claims that yield-bearing stablecoins threaten bank lending, stating there is no evidence to support such concerns. Additionally, the letter comes as the FDIC proposes rules allowing banks to issue stablecoins through subsidiaries, subject to reserve requirements and regulatory oversight.

The Blockchain Association, a non-profit crypto advocacy organization, wrote a letter to the US Senate Committee on Banking, signed by over 125 crypto industry groups and companies, opposing the ban on third-party service providers and platforms offering customer rewards to stablecoin holders.

Expanding the prohibition on stablecoin issuers sharing yield directly with customers, outlined in the GENIUS stablecoin regulatory framework, to include third-party service providers stifles innovation and leads to “greater market concentration,” the letter said.

The letter compared the rewards offered by crypto platforms to those offered by credit card companies, banks and other traditional payment providers.

The letter opposes efforts to stop crypto platforms from sharing yield with customers. Source: The Blockchain Association

Prohibiting crypto platforms from offering similar rewards for stablecoins gives an unfair advantage to incumbent financial service providers, the Blockchain Association said.

“The potential benefits of payment stablecoins will not be realized if these types of payments cannot compete on a level playing field with other payment mechanisms. Rewards and incentives are a standard feature of competitive markets.”

The Blockchain Association has issued several statements and letters pushing back against efforts to prohibit crypto platforms from sharing yield-bearing opportunities with customers, arguing that these rewards help consumers offset inflation.

Related: Bank of Canada lays out criteria for ‘good money’ stablecoins

FDIC paves the way for banks to issue stablecoins, industry group says stables aren’t a threat

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the US regulatory agency that oversees and insures the banking sector, published a proposal on Tuesday that would allow banks to issue stablecoins through subsidiaries.

Under the proposal, both the bank and its stablecoin subsidiary would be subject to FDIC rules and assessments for financial fitness, including reserve requirements.

The FDIC proposal to allow banks to issue stablecoins. Source: FDIC

The Blockchain Association continues to push back on claims that yield-bearing stablecoins and sharing rewards with customers threaten the banking sector and bank lending.

“Evidence does not support claims that stablecoin rewards threaten community banks or lending capacity,” the Blockchain Association said, adding that it is difficult to make the case that bank lending is actually constrained by customer deposits.

Despite this, the banking industry has lobbied against yield-bearing stablecoins and crypto platforms sharing yield with clients over fears that interest offered on digital asset products will erode the market share of banks.

Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the Blockchain Association's main argument against expanding the stablecoin yield prohibition to third-party service providers?

AThe Blockchain Association argues that expanding the prohibition to third-party service providers stifles innovation, leads to greater market concentration, and gives an unfair advantage to traditional financial service providers by preventing crypto platforms from competing on a level playing field.

QHow does the Blockchain Association compare the rewards offered by crypto platforms to those in traditional finance?

AThe letter compares the rewards offered by crypto platforms to the rewards offered by credit card companies, banks, and other traditional payment providers, stating that such incentives are a standard feature of competitive markets.

QWhat recent proposal did the FDIC make regarding banks and stablecoins?

AThe FDIC published a proposal that would allow banks to issue stablecoins through subsidiaries, with both the bank and its subsidiary being subject to FDIC rules, assessments for financial fitness, and reserve requirements.

QWhat is the banking industry's primary concern regarding yield-bearing stablecoins, according to the article?

AThe banking industry fears that the interest offered on digital asset products like yield-bearing stablecoins will erode their market share, leading them to lobby against these products and platforms sharing yield with clients.

QWhat reason does the Blockchain Association give for supporting the ability of platforms to share yield with stablecoin holders?

AThe Blockchain Association argues that these rewards help consumers offset inflation and are necessary for the potential benefits of payment stablecoins to be realized in a competitive market.

Letture associate

The Cost of an 11.5% Annualized Return: Will MicroStrategy's STRC Face a Moment of Reckoning?

This article analyzes the potential risks associated with MicroStrategy's (MSTR) use of structured financial products like STRC to leverage its BTC exposure. While these tools have enabled impressive returns (e.g., 11.5% annualized) and fueled significant capital inflows ($13.5B outstanding), they also create substantial annual dividend obligations (~$400M). The author argues that this structure, while effective in a bull market, could become a liability if BTC price stagnates or declines. The core risk is a potential negative feedback loop: the growing dividend burden from continued STRC issuance may eventually outweigh the benefits of increased BTC holdings. To meet these obligations, MicroStrategy might need to use new issuance proceeds for dividends instead of buying more BTC, which could disappoint equity investors. If the market capitalization (mNAV) falls below the value of its BTC holdings, the company could be forced to sell BTC instead of issuing new shares, potentially triggering a panic. The author estimates a potential inflection point in 6 months, where annual dividend costs reach $3-4B. At that stage, CEO Michael Saylor might face a difficult choice: sell BTC to meet obligations or sacrifice the credibility of the preferred shares by halting dividends. The article concludes that this financial engineering, while powerful, could ultimately "backfire" on MicroStrategy if market conditions turn.

marsbit1 h fa

The Cost of an 11.5% Annualized Return: Will MicroStrategy's STRC Face a Moment of Reckoning?

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片