Clash Over Stablecoin Legislation: Big Banks Vs. The Crypto Industry

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-01-14Last updated on 2026-01-14

Abstract

The Senate Banking Committee's updated crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) has sparked a new battle over the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulation. Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger claims the "Big Bank lobby" is pressuring Congress to revisit settled stablecoin reward legislation to suppress competition, not due to emerging risks. She argues that big banks, controlling assets equivalent to 60% of US GDP, offer low savings yields (0.39%) compared to the Federal Funds rate (3.50%-3.75%), and lobby against technologies providing better consumer returns by invoking "systemic risk" claims. Expert Omid Malekan criticized the notion that stablecoin holders shouldn't earn yields, advocating that interest from Treasury bills should benefit average Americans rather than bank executives. He cited JPMorgan's $25 billion net interest income as evidence of banks profiting from low saver returns, dismissing concerns that interest-paying stablecoins would harm lending. Both advocate for policies prioritizing consumer choice and fair returns.

As the Senate Banking Committee unveiled the updated draft of the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, another critical battle is unfolding surrounding the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulations. The banking lobby is pressing for significant changes, particularly regarding stablecoin rewards.

Are Big Banks Disrupting Stablecoin Competition?

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association and a prominent advocate for the crypto industry in Congress negotiations, took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to highlight the current state of discussions following the bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act.

She claimed that the “Big Bank lobby” is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation concerning stablecoin rewards, not due to emerging risks but rather to suppress competition that benefits consumers.

Mersinger stated, “When Big Banks face competition, they don’t improve services. They lobby to handicap alternatives. And the consumer suffers.”

The firm’s CEO pointed out that the average American savings account currently yields only 0.39%, while checking accounts offer an even lower rate of 0.07%. In contrast, the Federal Funds rate hovers between 3.50% and 3.75%.

She argued that this discrepancy is not merely a product of market forces but stems from a substantial barrier that the major banks have constructed, preventing customers from accessing better returns.

Mersinger emphasized that the dominance of the six largest US banks, which control assets equivalent to 60% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), only reinforces this trend.

She further stressed that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the banks’ immediate response is to invoke claims of “systemic risk” while lobbying against these advancements.

Ultimately, Mersinger and her colleagues are advocating for policies that prioritize consumer options. “We urge Congress to listen,” she implored, signaling the importance of the ongoing debate between the two sectors.

Expert Advocates For Fair Returns

Market expert Omid Malekan also weighed in, criticizing the notion that stablecoin holders should not earn yields, arguing that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans rather than lining the pockets of bank executives and shareholders.

Malekan called for a broader discussion on capping credit card interest rates and swipe fees, along with the implementation of a windfall profit tax on the net interest margins of banks. He asserted, “An industry this anti-competition and consumer choice should suffer the consequences.”

Support for Malekan’s view was reinforced by recent earnings reports from major banks. This morning, JPMorgan Chase announced $25 billion in net interest income, illustrating the profits generated by not providing higher returns to savers. Malekan dismissed claims that stablecoins paying interest would harm lending as unfounded.

The daily chart shows the surge in the total crypto market cap on Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main conflict described in the article regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe main conflict is between the big bank lobby and the crypto industry. The banking lobby is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation on stablecoin rewards, which the crypto industry argues is an attempt to suppress competition rather than address any emerging risks.

QAccording to Summer Mersinger, what is the average yield on a US savings account and how does it compare to the Federal Funds rate?

AAccording to Summer Mersinger, the average US savings account yields 0.39% and the average checking account yields 0.07%. This is in stark contrast to the Federal Funds rate, which is between 3.50% and 3.75%.

QWhat argument does Omid Malekan make about who should benefit from the interest revenue generated by Treasury bills?

AOmid Malekan argues that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans, rather than going to bank executives and shareholders.

QWhat recent financial report was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers?

AA recent earnings report from JPMorgan Chase, which announced $25 billion in net interest income, was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers.

QWhat does Summer Mersinger claim is the typical response from big banks when new technologies offer consumers better returns?

ASummer Mersinger claims that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the big banks' immediate response is to invoke claims of 'systemic risk' while lobbying against these advancements.

Related Reads

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

The article "iQiyi Is Too Impatient" discusses the controversy surrounding the Chinese streaming platform IQiyi's recent announcement of an "AI Actor Library" during its 2026 World Conference. IQiyi claimed over 100 actors, including well-known names like Zhang Ruoyun and Yu Hewei, had joined the initiative. CEO Gong Yu suggested AI could enable actors to "star in 14 dramas a year instead of 4" and that "live-action filming might become a world cultural heritage." The announcement quickly sparked backlash. Multiple actors named in the list issued urgent statements denying they had signed any AI-related authorization agreements. This forced IQiyi to clarify that inclusion in the library only indicated a willingness to *consider* AI projects, with separate negotiations required for any specific role. The incident, which trended on social media with hashtags like "IQiyi is crazy," is presented as a sign of the company's growing desperation. Facing intense competition from short-video platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou, as well as Bilibili and Xiaohongshu, IQiyi's financial performance has weakened, with revenues declining for two consecutive years. The author argues that IQiyi is "too impatient" to tell a compelling AI story to reassure the market, especially as it pursues a listing on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The piece concludes by outlining three key "AI questions" IQiyi must answer: defining its role as a tool provider versus a content creator, balancing the "coldness" of AI with the human element audiences desire, and properly managing the interests of platforms, actors, and viewers. The core dilemma is that while AI can reduce costs and increase efficiency, it risks creating homogenized, formulaic content and devaluing human performers.

marsbit39m ago

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

marsbit39m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片