Crypto Industry Voices Opposition To Potential Limits On Stablecoin Rewards In Legislation

bitcoinistPublicado em 2025-12-19Última atualização em 2025-12-19

Resumo

A coalition of cryptocurrency firms, led by the Blockchain Association, is urging the Senate Banking Committee to reject provisions in the recently passed GENIUS Act that could restrict stablecoin rewards. The legislation currently prohibits stablecoin issuers from offering interest but allows third-party platforms to provide rewards. The banking industry argues this is a loophole that could lead to deposit outflows, while crypto advocates maintain the law strikes a necessary balance for competition. They challenge the banks' claims, citing a lack of evidence linking stablecoins to reduced bank lending and accusing them of protectionism. Democrats suggest a compromise is possible to protect the banking system while permitting rewards.

A coalition of leading cryptocurrency firms is urging lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee to reject specific provisions concerning stablecoins outlined in the recently passed GENIUS Act.

This push, coordinated by the Blockchain Association, comes as more than 125 participants from the crypto industry voice their opposition to a proposed reinterpretation of an existing prohibition on stablecoin interest.

Among the organizations backing this letter are the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the DeFi Education Fund, the Solana Policy Institute, the Digital Chamber, as well as major players like a16z Crypto, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, and Ripple.

Stablecoin Law Sparks Conflict

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July, is designed to set a regulatory framework for dollar-backed digital tokens, commonly known as stablecoins. A key element of this legislation is a provision that prevents stablecoin issuers from offering “any form of interest or yield.”

However, this provision has ignited a contentious debate between the crypto and banking sectors regarding its extent and the necessity for any amendments.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, addressed these concerns in comments to The Hill. “Reopening the issue before we have even started rulemaking just doesn’t make sense,” she stated, emphasizing the importance of maintaining legislative certainty.

She argued that if Congress can revisit a bill immediately after it has been enacted, it raises questions about the law’s reliability for the marketplace.

The banking industry contends that the prohibition on interest should also apply to other entities that provide rewards to holders of stablecoins. They describe this stance as a crucial measure to address what they view as a “loophole,” asserting that it undermines the original intent aimed at stabilizing the financial ecosystem.

In contrast, the cryptocurrency sector maintains that the existing law strikes a careful balance that enables stablecoins to remain competitive in the payment services market. The letter from industry leaders outlines this perspective, stating:

Congress prohibited stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to those holding stablecoins while intentionally preserving the ability of platforms, intermediaries, and other third parties to offer lawful rewards or incentives to consumers.

Crypto Industry Challenges Banking Sector Claims

At the heart of the debate are concerns from banks about potential deposit outflows. Financial institutions fear that allowing rewards could incentivize individuals to shift funds into stablecoins, thereby reducing the amount of capital available for lending.

In response to these concerns, the crypto industry has cited an analysis from Charles River Associates, which found no significant correlation between the adoption of stablecoins and levels of deposits at community banks.

Furthermore, they pointed out that it seems contradictory to claim that banks are truly constrained by deposits when approximately $2.9 trillion in bank reserves are currently earning interest at the Federal Reserve (Fed) rather than being utilized for loans.

The industry’s letter challenges the banking sector’s position, stating, “Opposition to stablecoin rewards reflects protection of incumbent revenue models, not safety and soundness concerns.”

Democrats believe that it is possible to find a balanced approach, stating, “Congress can find solutions to this issue that protect the banking system while still permitting rewards and incentives.”

The daily chart shows the continuous drop of the total crypto market cap. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

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

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main concern of the crypto industry regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe crypto industry is opposing a specific provision in the GENIUS Act that prevents stablecoin issuers from offering 'any form of interest or yield' and is challenging a proposed reinterpretation that would extend this ban to platforms and third parties offering rewards.

QWhich major organizations are backing the letter of opposition to the Senate Banking Committee?

AThe letter is backed by the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the DeFi Education Fund, the Solana Policy Institute, the Digital Chamber, as well as major firms like a16z Crypto, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, and Ripple.

QWhat argument does the banking industry use to support extending the interest ban to third parties?

AThe banking industry argues that allowing other entities to provide stablecoin rewards creates a 'loophole' that undermines the law's original intent to stabilize the financial ecosystem and could lead to deposit outflows from banks.

QHow does the crypto industry counter the banks' concern about deposit outflows?

AThe crypto industry cites an analysis from Charles River Associates that found no significant correlation between stablecoin adoption and community bank deposit levels, and points out that banks currently have trillions in reserves earning interest at the Fed rather than being loaned out.

QWhat is the stance of Democrats on this issue according to the article?

ADemocrats believe that Congress can find a balanced solution that protects the banking system while still permitting rewards and incentives for stablecoin holders.

Leituras Relacionadas

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

Why do you always lose money on Polymarket? Because you bet on news, while the pros study the rules. This article explains how top traders ("che tou") profit by meticulously analyzing market rules, not just predicting events. Polymarket, a prediction market platform, often sees disputes over event outcomes due to ambiguous rule wording. For instance, a market asking "Who will be the leader of Venezuela by the end of 2026?" was misinterpreted by many who bet on Delcy Rodríguez, assuming she held power. However, the rules specified "officially holds" as the formally appointed, sworn-in individual. Since Nicolás Maduro was still recognized as president officially, he won the market—even being in prison. To resolve such disputes, Polymarket uses a decentralized arbitration system via UMA protocol. The process involves: 1. Proposal: Anyone can propose a market outcome by staking 750 USDC, earning 5 USDC if unchallenged. 2. Dispute: A 2-hour window allows challenges with a 750 USDC stake; successful challengers earn 250 USDC. 3. Discussion: A 48-hour period on UMA Discord for evidence and debate. 4. Voting: UMA token holders vote in two 24-hour phases (blind then public). Outcomes require >65% consensus and 5M tokens voted; otherwise, four re-votes occur before Polymarket intervention. 5. Settlement: Results are final and automatic. Unlike traditional courts, Polymarket’s system lacks separation between arbitrators and stakeholders—voters often hold market positions, creating conflicts of interest. This leads to herd mentality in discussions and non-transparent outcomes without explanatory rulings, preventing precedent formation. Thus, success on Polymarket hinges on deep rule interpretation, not just event prediction, exploiting gaps between reality and contractual wording.

marsbitHá 1h

Why Do You Always Lose Money on Polymarket? Because You're Betting on News, While the Pros Read the Rules

marsbitHá 1h

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

DeepSeek, a leading Chinese AI company, has initiated its first external funding round, aiming to raise at least $300 million at a valuation of no less than $10 billion. This move marks a significant shift from its founder Liang Wenfeng’s previous idealistic stance of rejecting external capital to maintain independence. Despite strong financial backing from its parent company, quantitative trading firm幻方量化 (Huanfang Quant), which provided an estimated $700 million in revenue in 2025 alone, DeepSeek faces mounting challenges. Key issues include a 15-month gap in major model updates, delays in its flagship V4 release, and the loss of several core researchers to competitors offering significantly higher compensation. The company is also undergoing a strategic pivot by migrating its infrastructure from NVIDIA’s CUDA to Huawei’s Ascend platform, a move aligned with China’s push for technological self-reliance amid U.S. export controls. However, DeepSeek lags behind rivals like智谱AI and MiniMax—both now publicly listed—in areas such as product ecosystem, multimodal capabilities, and commercialization. The funding round, though relatively small in scale, is seen as a way to establish a market-validated valuation anchor, making employee stock options more competitive and facilitating talent retention. It also signals DeepSeek’s transition from a pure research-oriented organization to a commercially-driven player in the global AI ecosystem.

marsbitHá 2h

DeepSeek Funding: Liang Wenfeng's 'Realist' Pivot

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片