U.S. Banks Push Congress to Restrict Stablecoins and Crypto Data Access

TheNewsCryptoPublished on 2026-01-22Last updated on 2026-01-22

Abstract

U.S. banks, led by the American Bankers Association (ABA), are urging Congress to impose restrictions on stablecoins and financial data access. They advocate for a ban on yield-bearing stablecoins, warning that such products could draw trillillions of dollars from bank deposits, reducing lending capacity and creating financial stability risks. Additionally, banks seek changes to Section 1033 banking rules to impose stronger liability rules and potential fees on data sharing, which currently allows users to connect bank accounts to crypto platforms. Crypto and fintech groups argue these efforts are anti-competitive, designed to protect banks from innovation, and could effectively kill open banking by blocking connections or charging fees. This dispute has delayed a key crypto market structure bill in the U.S. Senate.

The traditional banks in the U.S. are pushing the lawmakers to change the crypto rules that would limit the stablecoins and financial data sharing. This push was led by the American Bankers Association (ABA), which is the major group of U.S. banks.

Why Banks Want Stablecoin Yields Banned

ABA’s are demanding a ban on the stablecoin yield. They say that the yield-bearing stablecoins could pull money out of the banks’ deposits and reduce the banks’ ability to lend, which creates financial stability risks. Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, warns that “trillions of money” will move from banks into stablecoins if the yield is allowed.

In reply, Crypto and Fintech groups argue that this would protect banks from the competition and make the stablecoins less useful and lock innovations behind the bank-controlled products.

ABA is also pushing to change the banking rules of Section 1033, which allows users have the right to share their financial data with the apps they choose. Right now, under the existing rules, users can connect their bank accounts to crypto wallets, exchanges, stablecoin apps, and fintech tools. But Banks are opposing the current rules and need the stronger liability rules and potential fees or restrictions on data sharing.

Crypto and fintech groups warn that the banks could use these crypto rule changes in their favor by charging fees for the data access, block connections, and slowly kill the open banking without banning it right away.

Stablecoin Yield Dispute Delays Key U.S. Crypto Bill

These disagreements and debate slows the progress on a major crypto market structure bill in the U.S. Senate, which involves who regulates crypto, how the stablecoin works, and how crypto fits into traditional finance. The current debate on stablecoin yield and financial stability sharing has caused a delay in voting from the Senate Banking Committee, and the coinbase has withdrawn its support for the bill.

Overall, banks want to grow crypto under the banking system, but crypto firms prefer decentralization on digital assets, user access, and financial data.

Highlighted Crypto News:

Crypto Analyst Underlines Possible ETH Price High After Revised Monthly Projection

TagsbanksCryptoStablecoin

Related Reads

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

The article explains that the key to profiting on Polymarket, a prediction market platform, lies not just predicting real-world events correctly, but in meticulously understanding the specific rules that govern how each market will be resolved. It illustrates this with examples, such as a market on Venezuela's 2026 leader, where the official rules defining "officially holds" the office overruled the intuitive answer of who was in practical control. Other examples include debates over the definition of a "token" or what constitutes an "agreement." The core argument is that a "reality vs. rules" gap creates pricing discrepancies that savvy traders ("车头" or "whales") exploit. The platform has a formal dispute resolution process managed by UMA token holders to settle ambiguous outcomes. This process involves proposal submission, a challenge window, a discussion period, and a final vote. However, the article highlights a critical flaw in this system compared to a traditional court: the lack of separation between the arbiters (UMA voters) and the interested parties (traders with financial stakes in the outcome). This conflict of interest undermines the discussion phase, leads to herd mentality, and results in opaque final decisions without explanatory rulings. Consequently, the system lacks a body of precedent, making it difficult for users to learn from past disputes. The ultimate takeaway is that success on Polymarket requires a lawyer-like scrutiny of the rules to identify and capitalize on the cognitive gap between how events appear and how they are contractually defined for settlement.

marsbit43m ago

You Bet on the News, the Pros Read the Rules: The True Cognitive Gap in Losing Money on Polymarket

marsbit43m ago

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

The core debate surrounding the Federal Reserve's potential interest rate cuts is intensifying amid geopolitical conflict and rebounding inflation. The key question is whether high energy prices will cause persistent inflation or weaken consumer demand enough to force the Fed to cut rates. Citigroup presents a bullish case for cuts, arguing that oil supply disruptions from the Strait of Hormuz are temporary and will not lead to lasting inflationary pressure. They point to receding bond yields and oil prices as evidence the market is pricing in a short-lived shock. Citi's data also shows tightening financial conditions, a stabilizing labor market, and healthy tax returns, supporting their view that the path to lower rates remains open. Conversely, Deutsche Bank offers a starkly contrasting, more hawkish outlook. They argue the Fed's current policy is already neutral and expect rates to remain unchanged indefinitely. Their view is based on stalled disinflation progress and a shift toward more hawkish rhetoric from key Fed officials like Waller, who cited risks from prolonged Middle East conflict and tariffs. Other officials, including Williams and Hammack, signaled rates would likely stay on hold for a "considerable time." The market pricing has shifted dramatically, now forecasting zero cuts in 2026. The imminent release of the March retail sales "control group" data is highlighted as a critical test. This metric, which excludes gas station sales, will reveal if high gasoline prices are eroding consumer spending in other areas. A weak reading could support the case for imminent rate cuts, while a strong one would bolster the argument for the Fed to hold steady. This data is pivotal for determining the near-term policy path.

marsbit1h ago

Will the Fed Still Cut Interest Rates? Tonight's Data Is Crucial

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片