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 AI Investment Landscape Is Being Reshaped: Beyond the 'Magnificent Seven', What Opportunities Lie in the Semiconductor Supply Chain?

AI Investment Map is Reshaping: Opportunities Beyond the 'Magnificent Seven' Since ChatGPT ignited the AI wave, investment initially focused on the "Magnificent Seven" tech giants dominating cloud infrastructure. However, the rise of DeepSeek and debates on AI capital expenditure effectiveness are shifting this dynamic. Investors now recognize opportunities deeper in the supply chain—the companies providing the essential "picks and shovels." Early concerns about an AI investment "arms race" and potential low returns were partly alleviated by strong Q1 earnings from cloud providers, validating robust compute demand. This has highlighted a more certain investment thesis: regardless of which AI applications ultimately win, massive capital expenditure will first fuel demand for semiconductors and related components. This "pick-and-shovel" logic has driven semiconductor ETFs to record highs. Key beneficiaries include: * **Memory Chipmakers (e.g., SK Hynix, Samsung, Micron)**: High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) is a critical bottleneck for AI training. * **Photonics Companies**: Crucial for high-speed data transfer within AI data centers. * **The Broader "AI-11" Semiconductor Ecosystem**: This encompasses foundries & lithography (TSMC, ASML), logic & custom chips (AMD, Broadcom, Intel, Marvell), and enterprise storage (SanDisk, Western Digital). Every dollar of AI infrastructure spending flows through this chain. While the "Magnificent Seven" remain dominant in market size, their earnings growth premium over the rest of the S&P 500 ("S&P 493") is narrowing. Market attention and marginal investment are shifting towards the expanding semiconductor supply chain. The investment narrative is evolving from "betting on the ultimate AI winner" to "investing in the certainty of the infrastructure build-out." Understanding this shift from the demand side to the supply side is key to identifying future AI investment opportunities.

marsbit28 min fa

The AI Investment Landscape Is Being Reshaped: Beyond the 'Magnificent Seven', What Opportunities Lie in the Semiconductor Supply Chain?

marsbit28 min fa

600 People, $66 Billion: The First Major Cash-Out in the Era of Large Models

The first systematic "big cash-out" of the AI era occurred in October 2025, when over 600 current and former OpenAI employees sold a total of $6.6 billion in shares via a secondary market. Approximately 75 individuals maxed out a $30 million per-person sale limit, while around 525 others cashed out an average of $8.3 million each. This event, exceeding the scale of any 2024 US IPO, functioned as a "shadow IPO." It marked a radical departure from the traditional Silicon Valley path of waiting for a public listing, instead allowing employees to convert equity to cash after just two years of tenure—a direct retention tool in a fiercely competitive talent market where rivals like Meta have offered packages worth hundreds of millions. This massive liquidity event presents a dual-edged sword for OpenAI. While it helps retain talent, it also risks triggering a brain drain as newly wealthy employees may depart. Furthermore, it creates a dilemma for those who sold: they forfeited potential future gains as the company's valuation soared from $400 billion to $852 billion within months. In stark contrast, employees at rival Anthropic demonstrated greater reluctance to sell during their own secondary offering. The financial narratives of the two labs also diverge sharply. OpenAI, while achieving over $20 billion in annualized revenue by 2025, faces massive projected losses (up to $14 billion in 2026), a long path to cash flow positivity, and significant revenue-sharing payments to Microsoft. Anthropic reports rapid revenue growth, improving gross margins, and a faster path to profitability. OpenAI's trajectory is thus balanced precariously between skyrocketing valuation based on funding narratives and the pressures of sustained financial losses post-cash-out. The event underscores that the AI race has evolved into a capital and human experiment, where immense wealth crystallizes the complex calculations of greed, fear, and ambition within the industry.

marsbit48 min fa

600 People, $66 Billion: The First Major Cash-Out in the Era of Large Models

marsbit48 min fa

NVIDIA Begins Adding Soap to the Bubble

NVIDIA is taking on a dual role: not just as a leading chip supplier, but as a massive capital allocator across the entire AI supply chain. In 2026, the company has committed over $40 billion in investments within five months, targeting everything from optical fiber manufacturing and data center operations to foundational AI model development. This investment spree, described as a systematic "sprinkler" approach, primarily funds companies that are major buyers of NVIDIA's own GPUs. Critics, including analysts from Goldman Sachs, label this a "circular revenue" loop—comparable to a supplier financing a customer to buy more of its products. A prominent example is NVIDIA's investment in OpenAI, which is expected to generate around $13 billion in revenue for NVIDIA, much of which may be reinvested back into OpenAI. While CEO Jensen Huang dismisses the "circular financing" critique as "absurd," arguing the investments are confidence votes in long-term generational shifts, some analysts express discomfort. They note that while investments in critical supply chain components like optics are strategically sound, funding new cloud providers like CoreWeave feels like "pre-paying for your own GPUs." The strategy carries significant risks. If the AI investment cycle turns, the market may question how much demand is genuine versus artificially sustained by NVIDIA's own balance sheet. Despite posting record-breaking earnings—$215.9 billion in annual revenue and $120 billion in net profit for FY2026—NVIDIA's stock fell after its report, signaling that "beating expectations" may no longer be enough to assure investors about the duration of the AI spending boom. The article concludes that while a bubble isn't necessarily a fraud, NVIDIA's actions resemble adding soap to a bubble—making it appear more robust and durable. This creates a complex scenario requiring extreme冷静 from investors to distinguish between real structural growth and financial engineering.

marsbit1 h fa

NVIDIA Begins Adding Soap to the Bubble

marsbit1 h fa

Short Positions Have Been Squeezed Out: Will the Next Leg of the U.S. Stock AI Rally Continue in Seoul?

"Short Squeeze Exhausted: Will the Next Leg of the AI Rally Continue in Seoul?" A Nomura report suggests the US AI stock rally, which saw the S&P 500 rise ~16.6% in 28 days largely driven by 10 key stocks, may be pausing. The fuel from short covering, CTA fund positioning, and volatility-control strategies is nearing its limit. For the rally to continue, new momentum from retail and sentiment-driven FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) is needed. South Korea's market provided a potential answer on the very day the report was published. The KOSPI index surged 4.32%, triggering a buy-side circuit breaker, led by massive gains in chip giants SK Hynix (+11.98%) and Samsung. This surge is characterized by retail "hynix FOMO" and overseas funds precisely buying into AI themes via chip-focused ETFs, shifting from broad Korean market ETFs. The Korean rally is a high-beta extension of the US AI capital expenditure story, as major cloud providers plan massive infrastructure spending, directly benefiting memory chip leaders. However, this linkage also implies vulnerability. The sustainability of this next leg depends on whether US tech stocks correct, the trajectory of US inflation (with upcoming CPI data key), and geopolitical tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. Seoul has emerged as the new epicenter of the AI trade, but its fate remains tied to these broader macro and market dynamics.

marsbit1 h fa

Short Positions Have Been Squeezed Out: Will the Next Leg of the U.S. Stock AI Rally Continue in Seoul?

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片