Blockchain Association Rejects Proposal To Widen Stablecoin Yield Restrictions

bitcoinistPublicado em 2025-12-21Última atualização em 2025-12-21

Resumo

The Blockchain Association, along with over 125 crypto and fintech groups, is urging Senate Banking leaders to oppose efforts to expand a ban on stablecoin yields beyond what is explicitly stated in the GENIUS Act. The law prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying yields directly to holders but allows third-party platforms to offer rewards. The association argues that broadening the ban would harm competition and innovation, favoring larger financial firms. In contrast, banking groups, led by the American Bankers Association, are pushing for the ban to extend to partners and affiliates, warning that stablecoin rewards could circumvent the law and drain trillions from traditional bank deposits. The debate centers on consumer protection, financial stability, and the future competitive landscape of digital payments. Senate Banking staff are reviewing both sides as they consider potential legislative clarifications.

The Blockchain Association led a broad industry push this week, asking Senate Banking leaders to resist efforts that would widen a ban on stablecoin yields beyond what Congress wrote into law.

According to the association, the letter was signed by more than 125 crypto and fintech groups and companies and was sent to lawmakers to warn against reinterpreting the new rules in a way that would also bar exchanges and apps from offering rewards tied to stablecoin holdings.

Preserving Platforms’ Ability To Offer Rewards

The coalition’s argument rests on the text of the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law earlier this year by US President Donald Trump and explicitly bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield directly to holders.

Reports have disclosed that the statute nevertheless leaves room for third-party platforms to provide incentives, a distinction industry groups say is intentional and important for competition.

The letter pushes back against attempts to bar crypto platforms from offering yield to customers. Source: The Blockchain Association

Banks Call For Closing A Loophole

Banking groups have pushed back hard. A coalition led by the American Bankers Association and other banking trade groups asked Congress to clarify that the prohibition should extend to partners and affiliates, arguing that third-party rewards could circumvent the law and drain deposits from traditional banks.

According to recent coverage, Treasury analyses cited by bank advocates estimate that stablecoins could, in some scenarios, pull over $6 trillion from bank deposits — a figure that has become central to the banks’ case for tightening the rules.

What Industry Leaders Say

Industry spokespeople say expanding the ban would chill new services that rely on stablecoins and would tilt the market toward larger, incumbent financial firms that already control many payment rails.

BTCUSD currently trading at $88,063. Chart: TradingView

Based on reports, the Blockchain Association and partner groups contend that changing the law’s interpretation now would reopen negotiations the GENIUS Act resolved and would sow regulatory confusion before agencies finish writing implementing rules.

Competition And Consumer Choice At Stake

Supporters of stronger limits say the aim is consumer protection — to stop stablecoin arrangements from becoming de-facto interest accounts that could undermine the banking system and reduce loans to households and businesses.

Other observers point out the issue could also shape which firms win in payments going forward, since restrictions on rewards would affect the commercial incentives of exchanges and fintechs.

Next Steps In Washington

Senate Banking staff are weighing letters from both sides as they consider potential fixes or clarifying language during upcoming hearings.

Regulators who must implement the GENIUS Act have been urged to issue rules that prevent evasion of the ban, and lawmakers may face pressure to either leave the law as written or to craft narrow changes aimed at banks’ concerns.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main action taken by the Blockchain Association this week?

AThe Blockchain Association led a broad industry push by sending a letter to Senate Banking leaders, asking them to resist efforts to widen a ban on stablecoin yields beyond the text of the GENIUS Act.

QAccording to the coalition's argument, what does the GENIUS Act explicitly prohibit?

AThe GENIUS Act explicitly bars permitted stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield directly to holders.

QWhy are banking groups, like the American Bankers Association, pushing for a broader interpretation of the ban?

ABanking groups argue that third-party rewards could circumvent the law and drain deposits from traditional banks, with estimates suggesting stablecoins could pull over $6 trillion from bank deposits in some scenarios.

QWhat is the potential market impact if the ban on stablecoin yields is expanded to third parties, according to industry spokespeople?

AIndustry spokespeople say expanding the ban would chill new services that rely on stablecoins and would tilt the market toward larger, incumbent financial firms that already control many payment rails.

QWhat are the next steps for Senate Banking staff regarding this issue?

ASenate Banking staff are weighing letters from both sides as they consider potential fixes or clarifying language during upcoming hearings.

Leituras Relacionadas

The Cost of an 11.5% Annualized Return: Will MicroStrategy's STRC Face a Moment of Reckoning?

This article analyzes the potential risks associated with MicroStrategy's (MSTR) use of structured financial products like STRC to leverage its BTC exposure. While these tools have enabled impressive returns (e.g., 11.5% annualized) and fueled significant capital inflows ($13.5B outstanding), they also create substantial annual dividend obligations (~$400M). The author argues that this structure, while effective in a bull market, could become a liability if BTC price stagnates or declines. The core risk is a potential negative feedback loop: the growing dividend burden from continued STRC issuance may eventually outweigh the benefits of increased BTC holdings. To meet these obligations, MicroStrategy might need to use new issuance proceeds for dividends instead of buying more BTC, which could disappoint equity investors. If the market capitalization (mNAV) falls below the value of its BTC holdings, the company could be forced to sell BTC instead of issuing new shares, potentially triggering a panic. The author estimates a potential inflection point in 6 months, where annual dividend costs reach $3-4B. At that stage, CEO Michael Saylor might face a difficult choice: sell BTC to meet obligations or sacrifice the credibility of the preferred shares by halting dividends. The article concludes that this financial engineering, while powerful, could ultimately "backfire" on MicroStrategy if market conditions turn.

marsbitHá 1h

The Cost of an 11.5% Annualized Return: Will MicroStrategy's STRC Face a Moment of Reckoning?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片