Stablecoins not a ‘systemic risk’: Coinbase pushes back on GENIUS Act critics

ambcryptoPubblicato 2026-02-04Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-04

Introduzione

The debate over stablecoin regulation continues between the crypto industry and traditional banks. Coinbase strongly opposes claims that stablecoins pose a "systemic risk" to the U.S. financial system. Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad argues that stablecoins follow a secure government-backed model, unlike the risky money market funds that contributed to past financial crises. Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal emphasizes that stablecoin reserves are backed dollar-for-dollar by short-term instruments like U.S. Treasuries and are not relent like traditional bank deposits. However, the proposed GENIUS Act allows stablecoin reserves to include riskier assets such as uninsured deposits and money market fund shares. Critics, including Better Markets and the Bank Policy Institute, warn this could make stablecoins vulnerable to bank-like runs. Despite ongoing discussions and a planned meeting among Senate Democrats, the future of stablecoin legislation remains uncertain, with no clear timeline for the bill's advancement.

The debate over stablecoin yields shows no signs of ending soon. At the center of the issue are two opposing sides, the crypto industry and traditional banks, both pushing for a compromise but remaining firmly divided.

Meanwhile, Coinbase has taken a strong position. The exchange has consistently pushed back against claims that stablecoins pose a “systemic risk” to the broader U.S. financial system.

Stablecoins are way safer, says Coinbase

In a recent statement, Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase’s Chief Policy Officer, dismissed claims that stablecoins mirror money market funds (MMFs), which triggered past financial crises.

Shirzad said that it was a misconception to equate risky prime MMFs that triggered the 2008 financial crisis with safer government-backed MMFs. According to Shirzad, stablecoins follow the ‘secure’ government model and will be “future safe haven.”

“But it is just the opposite (of projected financial crisis)– stablecoins will be the future safe haven.”

Another Coinbase official, Paul Grewal, the firm’s chief legal officer (CLO), echoed the same in a recent CNBC interview.

“Stablecoin issuer deposits (reserves) are not re-lent out like the fractionalized reserve system used by banks. They’re backed dollar-for-dollar in short-term instruments, principally U.S. Treasuries. They are much safer than the banks.”

Crypto bill on the lifeline

But not all the issuers’ reserves are backed by short-term bonds. The stablecoin law, the GENIUS Act, allows for the reserves to include uninsured deposits, repurchase agreement loans, and shares of MMFs.

According to Better Markets, a financial reform nonprofit, this ‘risky’ reserve composition makes stablecoin vulnerable to bank-like runs seen in 2020 and 2008.

The same framing was applied by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a lobby group for banks, which called stablecoins a ‘less regulated cousin’ of money market funds.

In fact, these arguments by Better Markets and BPI were the ones Shirzad addressed. The ongoing discussion is part of the larger push for compromise on stablecoin yield that has stalled the market structure bill.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that Democrats have planned a meeting to discuss the bill. This follows White House meeting held on the 2nd of February, to broker a stablecoin yield deal between banks and the crypto industry by the end of the month.

It remains unclear whether the bill will progress out of the Senate Banking Committee by Q1 2026.


Final Thoughts

  • Coinbase officials have maintained that stablecoins are much safer and carry less risk than banks.
  • Senate Democrats planned a meeting on the crypto bill, but uncertainty remains on the legislation’s momentum.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main argument Coinbase makes against claims that stablecoins pose a systemic risk?

ACoinbase argues that stablecoins are much safer than banks and money market funds (MMFs) because their reserves are backed dollar-for-dollar in short-term instruments like U.S. Treasuries and are not re-lent out like in the fractionalized reserve banking system.

QAccording to the article, what does the GENIUS Act allow stablecoin reserves to include?

AThe GENIUS Act allows stablecoin reserves to include uninsured deposits, repurchase agreement loans, and shares of money market funds (MMFs).

QWhich two groups are mentioned as being opposed to the crypto industry's view on stablecoins?

AThe two groups opposed to the crypto industry's view are traditional banks, represented by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), and the financial reform nonprofit Better Markets.

QWhat specific event from the past do critics cite when warning about the risks of stablecoins?

ACritics cite the bank-like runs seen in the 2008 financial crisis and in 2020 as a risk for stablecoins, comparing their reserve composition to that of risky prime money market funds (MMFs).

QWhat is the current status of the stablecoin market structure bill according to the article?

AThe bill's progress is uncertain, and it remains unclear whether it will advance out of the Senate Banking Committee by the first quarter of 2026, despite planned meetings among Democrats to discuss it.

Letture associate

BIT Research: Liquidity is Disappearing, Will Bitcoin Replay the Bottoming Pattern of 2022?

The crypto market is currently in an adjustment phase driven by policy expectations and liquidity shifts. Despite a brief rebound fueled by geopolitical easing and SpaceX's strong IPO performance, unexpectedly hawkish signals from new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh have removed anticipated easing support. Concurrently, stablecoin liquidity is shrinking, with insufficient new capital inflows, pushing the market into a typically quiet summer period. Pricing lacks catalysts for a sustained rally. Daily trading volume has significantly contracted, stablecoin growth has slowed markedly, and the supportive effect of Strategy's (formerly MicroStrategy) STRC preferred stock-financed Bitcoin purchases is fading. Amid policy uncertainty, seasonal weakness, and liquidity contraction, Bitcoin faces near-term downward pressure. Warsh's hawkish pivot and refusal to provide a clear policy outlook have increased risk premiums, historically unfavorable for Bitcoin. Technically, the trend remains bearish below $73,700, with $62,446 as critical support. A break below could accelerate declines, though a prolonged consolidation phase, similar to 2022's bottoming process, is possible. Liquidity is a core constraint. Current daily volume is around $500 billion, roughly 25% of the peak during the July-Oct 2025 rally. The 12-month growth rates for USDT and USDC have fallen to ~20%, with 6-month growth near zero, indicating weak new inflows. Bitcoin ETF and Strategy-driven inflows have also weakened, with a 30-day rolling net outflow. With inflation at 4.2% above the Fed's target, combined hawkish policy, seasonal factors, and liquidity shortages challenge Bitcoin's ability to hold above $60,000. However, this adjustment phase may be forming a cyclical low this summer, potentially setting the stage for the next bull cycle.

marsbit28 min fa

BIT Research: Liquidity is Disappearing, Will Bitcoin Replay the Bottoming Pattern of 2022?

marsbit28 min fa

Who Makes the Best Use of Claude Code? The Answer Might Not Be Programmers

Claude Code Usage Report Summary (Based on ~400k sessions) Core Finding: In agentic programming with Claude Code, a clear division of labor has emerged: humans primarily decide *what* to build (planning decisions), while Claude decides *how* to build it (execution decisions). Key Insights: 1. **Effectiveness is not limited to programmers.** In code-generation tasks, success rates for users in non-technical fields (law, finance, management, research) are nearing those of software engineers. What matters most is the user's domain expertise and understanding of the problem to be solved. 2. **Domain expertise drives success and efficiency.** Sessions where users exhibited "expert" proficiency in the task's domain saw verified success rates double compared to "novice" sessions. Experts also delegated more work per instruction, with Claude executing more actions and producing more output. 3. **AI is amplifying, not replacing, domain knowledge.** Claude Code lowers the *implementation* barrier, not the *judgment* barrier. The value of knowing the "what" and "why" is increasing relative to just knowing the "how" to code. 4. **Usage is evolving.** Over a 7-month period (Oct '25 - Apr '26), the share of sessions for debugging halved, while use for software operations, data analysis, and non-code writing roughly doubled. The estimated economic value of typical tasks increased by ~25%. Conclusion: The data suggests coding agents are making programming background less critical for completing technical tasks. However, they reward and amplify deep domain understanding. The ability to successfully direct an AI agent stems more from mastery of a specific field than from coding skill itself. The primary gains come from being competent in a domain; deep specialization adds only marginal additional advantage. This may signal a shift where software creation becomes integrated into various professions.

marsbit1 h fa

Who Makes the Best Use of Claude Code? The Answer Might Not Be Programmers

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片