Crypto Giants Battle Banks Over Stablecoin Reward Programs

TheNewsCryptoPublicado em 2025-12-20Última atualização em 2025-12-20

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

The author, Alex Xu, explains his decision to significantly reduce his Bitcoin holdings (from full to ~30% of his portfolio) during the current bull cycle, citing a lowered long-term outlook for BTC's price appreciation in the next cycle. He outlines six key reasons for this reduced expectation: 1. **Diminished Growth Drivers:** The narrative of exponential user adoption has largely played out with institutional ETF adoption. The next major growth phase—adoption by sovereign national reserves or central banks—seems unlikely in the near future. 2. **Personal Opportunity Cost:** More attractive investment opportunities have emerged in other assets, such as undervalued companies. 3. **Industry-Wide Contraction:** The broader crypto industry is struggling, with most Web3 business models (SocialFi, GameFi, DePIN) failing. This overall萧条 (depression) reduces the fundamental demand and consensus for Bitcoin. 4. **Strain on Major Buyer:** MicroStrategy, a major corporate buyer of BTC, faces rising financing expenses for its debt, which could slow its purchasing rate and create significant marginal pressure on the market. 5. **Increased Competition from Gold:** The emergence of "tokenized gold" has closed the functional gap (portability, divisibility) between physical gold and Bitcoin, offering a strong competitor in the non-sovereign store-of-value space. 6. **Security Budget Concerns:** The block reward halving continues to exacerbate the long-standing issue of funding Bitcoin's network security, with new fee source explorations like Ordinals and L2s largely failing. The author's decision to hold a significant (though reduced) position reflects a cautious, not bearish, outlook. He remains open to increasing his exposure if the fundamental reasons for his skepticism change or if new positive catalysts emerge.

marsbitHá 13m

Lowering Expectations for BTC's Next Bull Market

marsbitHá 13m

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

Prediction markets face a fundamental contradiction: they rely on insider trading to generate accurate prices, yet this same activity erodes public trust and threatens their survival. Recent scandals, such as a U.S. special forces member making $400,000 on Polymarket using classified information about a raid, highlight the severity of the issue. While platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi market themselves as venues where "everyone is an expert" and encourage informed trading, they also enforce policies against illegal insider trading. The core dilemma is that these markets depend on informed insiders for price efficiency but require uninformed retail participants to provide liquidity. If insider trading is too rampant, retail traders leave, perceiving the market as unfair. If restrictions are too strict, valuable information flow dries up, reducing the market’s predictive utility. The challenge is finding a balance that maintains both accuracy and perceived fairness—a task complicated by regulatory pressures and recurring scandals.

marsbitHá 19m

Prediction Markets Cannot Exist Without Insider Trading, But Insider Trading Is Killing Them

marsbitHá 19m

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran has announced a comprehensive plan to assert control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil shipping chokepoint. The proposed measures include requiring all vessels to obtain Iranian permission for passage, imposing fees for security, environmental protection, and navigation management—preferably paid in Iranian rials—and absolutely banning Israeli ships. Vessels from countries deemed hostile by Iran’s top security bodies may also be barred. Analysts suggest Iran’s motives are multifaceted: increasing pressure on the U.S. and Israel by leveraging control over oil transit to influence global prices and inflation; creating a new revenue stream, potentially exceeding $7.7 billion annually, to counter Western sanctions and support postwar reconstruction; and using transit permissions as bargaining chips in future negotiations, notably with the U.S. However, the plan faces significant practical and diplomatic challenges. Enforcing comprehensive interception and fee collection in the busy waterway, patrolled by international military forces, would be difficult. The U.S. has already countering with a blockade of Iranian ports and threats to intercept any ship paying fees, potentially strangling Iran’s oil exports and fee revenue. Broad international opposition, led by European and Gulf states, and legal controversies further complicate implementation. The proposal may ultimately serve more as a negotiating tactic than a feasible policy, with its execution remaining highly uncertain.

marsbitHá 1h

Can Iran 'Control' the Strait of Hormuz?

marsbitHá 1h

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

"Vertical Integration Capital Aggregators: How Web3 Builds Unbreachable Moats" explores how leading Web3 protocols create competitive advantages by vertically integrating multiple ecosystem components. Unlike Web2 aggregators that focus on user demand or supplier commoditization, successful Web3 entities like Hyperliquid aggregate capital, liquidity, users, and distribution into a unified financial ecosystem. This integration allows for efficient capital deployment—Hyperliquid generates $0.30 in fees per $1 of TVL annually, compared to Aave's $0.05—while creating a defensible moat that is difficult to replicate across six simultaneous fronts. However, this model comes with risks: DeFi loses $0.50 to hacks for every $1 earned, pushing protocols toward partial centralization and closed systems for security and scalability. The token serves as a shared incentive layer, aligning stakeholders and driving value through mechanisms like buybacks. The article concludes that vertical integration, not capital itself, is the true moat, and that the industry is evolving toward pragmatic, partially centralized models to ensure economic growth and sustainability.

marsbitHá 1h

Vertically Integrated Capital Aggregators: How Does Web3 Build an Impregnable Moat?

marsbitHá 1h

Falsely Accused by AI and Jailed for 160 Days: American Woman Steps into the Execution Zone

Summary: Angela Lipps, a woman from Tennessee, was wrongfully imprisoned for 160 days after a facial recognition AI incorrectly identified her as a suspect in a bank fraud case in North Dakota. Despite her insistence that she had never been to the state, she was arrested in July 2025 and held without bail. She spent 108 days in a local jail before being transferred to North Dakota in October, where she was eventually cleared after her lawyer provided bank records proving she was buying pizza in Tennessee at the time of the crime. Her ordeal highlights a growing issue with AI-driven law enforcement errors. Similar cases include Robert Williams, detained for 30 hours in 2020, and Chris Gatlin, jailed for 17 months based on flawed AI matches. Systems like Clearview AI, used by over 3,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies, often rely on low-quality images and can produce inaccurate results. Human oversight failures exacerbate the problem, as officers sometimes skip verification steps, leading to wrongful arrests. While AI has improved policing efficiency, its errors have serious consequences, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations and human accountability in its use.

marsbitHá 2h