Crypto Giants Battle Banks Over Stablecoin Reward Programs

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2025-12-20Last updated on 2025-12-20

Abstract

A coalition of over 125 crypto companies is advocating for the protection of stablecoin reward programs amid opposition from traditional banks. The dispute centers on the GENIUS Act, which currently allows platforms—but not issuers—to offer rewards. Banking groups are pushing to extend restrictions to platforms, arguing that such programs carry risks similar to interest paid by issuers. The crypto industry, led by groups like the Blockchain Association, compares these rewards to credit card incentives and warns that limiting them would harm competition and innovation. They emphasize that stablecoin rewards offer significantly higher returns than traditional bank accounts, which yield minimal interest, and argue that restricting these programs would primarily benefit large banks at the expense of consumers and fintech firms.

Over 125 crypto companies have come together to form a coalition that aims to safeguard stablecoin reward programs from limitations that may be imposed by the traditional banking sector. This group of companies has written a letter to Congress advocating for their freedom to provide attractive returns to clients via digital assets.

The disagreement is about the GENIUS Act, which defines distinct roles for stablecoin issuers and the intermediaries that are the platforms, such as exchanges. According to this setting, issuers are not allowed to give interest in a direct way, but platforms still have the option to offer rewards to their users.

Banking Industry Challenges Stablecoin Platform Rewards

Tyler Winklevoss, Gemini co-founder, in a tweet, lambasted banks for reopening settled legislative matters by using regulatory pressure tactics. In his opinion, traditional financial institutions are crossing the line by questioning the established framework, which Congress has already approved.

Now banking groups are urging legislators to not only extend the limitations to issuers but also include platform, based rewards. According to them, these reward programs entail similar risks as the issuer, paid interest; however, the crypto coalition vehemently disagrees with this position.

The sector compares the situation to credit card rewards, which continue to function despite the fact that banks are not allowed to pay interest on deposits. This comparison demonstrates that intermediary platforms can provide advantages without raising the same regulatory issues as direct issuer payments.

The Blockchain Association led a coordinated campaign that attracted support from significant crypto exchanges like Gemini, Coinbase, and Kraken to the Senate Banking Committee leadership. According to the coalition, a restriction on platform incentives would “cut the heart out of competition” in the financial services market in the U. S. across the country.

The question of how ordinary people would be affected by such a move is still at the core of the argument. Traditional bank accounts hardly bring any returns as opposed to crypto ones. Average checking accounts give roughly 0.07%, while savings accounts offer about 0.40% yearly returns to depositors.

Stablecoin incentive schemes provide substantially more returns; thus, they become appealing alternatives for users looking for higher profits from their holdings. The crypto industry cautions that a limitation of such programs would be a transfer of benefits to big banks, with a subsequent disadvantage to small fintech firms.

While big banks aim to be the ones issuing stablecoins in the near future, the industry watchers are saying that the timing of the regulatory crackdown looks like a deliberate move. The group argues that keeping platform rewards is a key factor in ensuring the competitiveness of innovation in digital payment services.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

Tezos Art Ecosystem Tops 500K NFT Sales in 2025 as Institutional Adoption Accelerates

Tagscrypto firmsStablecoin

Related Questions

QWhat is the main goal of the coalition formed by over 125 crypto companies?

AThe coalition aims to safeguard stablecoin reward programs from limitations that may be imposed by the traditional banking sector and advocate for their ability to provide attractive returns to clients via digital assets.

QWhich specific legislation is at the center of the disagreement between crypto companies and banks?

AThe disagreement is about the GENIUS Act, which defines distinct roles for stablecoin issuers and intermediary platforms, prohibiting issuers from directly offering interest but allowing platforms to provide rewards.

QHow does the crypto industry compare stablecoin reward programs to traditional financial products?

AThe crypto industry compares stablecoin reward programs to credit card rewards, arguing that platforms can provide benefits without the same regulatory issues as direct issuer payments, similar to how credit card rewards function despite banks not being allowed to pay interest on deposits.

QWhat potential consequence does the crypto coalition warn about if platform rewards are restricted?

AThe crypto coalition warns that restricting platform rewards would 'cut the heart out of competition' in the U.S. financial services market, transferring benefits to big banks and disadvantaging small fintech firms.

QWhat significant difference in returns exists between traditional bank accounts and stablecoin incentive schemes?

ATraditional checking accounts offer approximately 0.07% annual returns and savings accounts about 0.40%, while stablecoin incentive schemes provide substantially higher returns, making them appealing alternatives for users seeking higher profits from their holdings.

Related Reads

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

An article compares the core architectural philosophies of WeChat and Telegram, highlighting fundamental differences in data storage, monetization, and developer ecosystems. **Data Storage:** Telegram offers unlimited, synchronized cloud storage for seamless access across all devices. In contrast, WeChat stores chat history locally on each device, requiring a manual migration process for transfer and tethering desktop sessions to an active smartphone. **Features & Ecosystem:** Telegram's open Bot API allows for easy, free bot creation, while WeChat's massive ecosystem of over 4.8 million "mini-programs" operates within a closed, curated, and more regulated platform. Commenting also differs: Telegram uses integrated discussion threads for channels, whereas WeChat relies on pre-moderated comments for official accounts and separate chats for interaction. **File Sharing & Payments:** Telegram supports large file transfers (up to 4GB for Premium), while WeChat limits most files to 200MB. A key divergence is in payments: WeChat Pay is deeply integrated into daily life and commerce in China, whereas Telegram lacks a comparable built-in fiat payment system, focusing instead on third-party bots and crypto. **Analysis:** The comparison reveals two distinct models: WeChat is a tightly integrated, closed ecosystem deeply embedded in the real economy, while Telegram prioritizes open protocols, flexible data handling, and low barriers for developers. An added perspective notes that WeChat's fusion of messaging and payments in a single interface without end-to-end encryption for chats potentially broadens the attack surface, raising security questions as more functions converge.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

You'll Be Surprised How Much WeChat's Architecture Differs from Telegram's

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Hacker Leaks GTA6 and Launches a Token: Leaked Videos Become Ad Space for $CYBERLEEK, Must Buy Tokens to Vote for Next Clip

A hacker group called "CyberLeek" has leaked gameplay footage of the highly anticipated video game *GTA 6*, which is slated for release in 2026. Simultaneously, the group launched a meme token, $CYBERLEEK, on Solana. The leaks, which include maps and gameplay clips, are heavily watermarked with advertisements urging viewers to buy the token. Investigations of blockchain data reveal that the token was created and funded from a single wallet approximately eight hours before the first leak was released, suggesting a coordinated plan. The group has implemented a voting system where token holders can "vote" for the next type of content to be leaked by sending $CYBERLEEK tokens to a designated wallet—a process that permanently transfers the tokens to the hackers. This creates a self-sustaining cycle where interest in the leaks drives token purchases. Financially, the operation involved minimal upfront costs (less than $3,500 in out-of-pocket expenses) but generated significant revenue. On its first day, the token saw $15 million in trading volume, netting the creators an estimated $30,000 from transaction fees alone. While the group later burned a large portion of its developer-held tokens (worth over $1 million) to build trust, the fee-generating mechanism remains intact. The game's publisher, Take-Two Interactive, has initiated legal proceedings to identify the hackers. Despite this, the case demonstrates a new model where leaked intellectual property is used as leverage to promote and profit from a cryptocurrency, with meme token markets serving as an additional revenue stream.

marsbit3h ago

Hacker Leaks GTA6 and Launches a Token: Leaked Videos Become Ad Space for $CYBERLEEK, Must Buy Tokens to Vote for Next Clip

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片