Stablecoin yield ban emerges as flashpoint in new U.S. crypto bill

ambcryptoОпубликовано 2026-05-12Обновлено 2026-05-12

Введение

A new U.S. crypto market structure bill draft has intensified conflict between banks and the crypto industry, with a proposed ban on interest or passive yield payments tied to payment stablecoins emerging as a central battleground. The provision aims to prevent stablecoins from functioning like blockchain-based savings accounts that could draw deposits away from traditional banks, though certain activity-based rewards would still be permitted. Crypto executives argue this eliminates a key retail advantage, while banking groups see it as necessary to protect the traditional system. Despite these restrictions, the bill offers broader protections for the crypto industry, including clearer legal categories for digital assets, registration pathways for firms, and safeguards for self-custody wallets. For retail users, the outcome is mixed: they may gain regulatory clarity and stronger consumer protections but likely lose easy access to passive yield from stablecoin holdings.

A newly released draft of the U.S. crypto market structure has intensified the fight between banks and the digital asset industry. Lawmakers proposed restrictions on stablecoin yield payments while expanding legal protections for broader crypto activity.

The bill attempts to create clearer rules for digital assets, exchanges, stablecoins, decentralized finance, and self-custody wallets.

However, one section has quickly become the central battleground: a proposed ban on interest or yield payments tied to payment stablecoins.

The provision would prohibit issuers and digital asset service providers from offering interest-like returns to U.S. users simply for holding payment stablecoins.

The debate has already sparked public clashes between banking groups, crypto executives, and lawmakers.

Banks push back against stablecoin competition

American Bankers Association recently urged banking executives to lobby lawmakers over stablecoin legislation, warning that stablecoins could pull deposits away from traditional banks.

Banks fear yield-bearing stablecoins could function like blockchain-based savings accounts while bypassing parts of the traditional banking system.

That concern appears reflected in the bill’s stablecoin provisions.

While the draft restricts passive “idle yield” tied solely to holding stablecoins, it still allows certain activity- or transaction-based rewards that do not function like deposit interest.

The distinction could allow crypto firms to continue offering loyalty incentives or usage rewards while preventing stablecoins from directly competing with interest-bearing bank deposits.

Crypto industry says banks already won major concessions

Crypto executives and pro-crypto lawmakers argue that the industry has already made significant compromises to move legislation forward.

Paul Grewal recently responded to criticism from banking groups by stating:

“You got idle yield killed.”

Bernie Moreno also accused the banking industry of trying to preserve its control over deposits and payment infrastructure through lobbying pressure.

The conflict highlights growing competition between banks and blockchain-based payment systems as stablecoins move deeper into mainstream finance.

Bill offers broader crypto protections

Despite the stablecoin restrictions, the draft includes several provisions viewed as favorable to the crypto industry and retail users.

The bill:

  • creates legal categories for network tokens and digital commodities,
  • provides clearer registration pathways for crypto firms,
  • and protects lawful self-custody through self-hosted wallets.

The legislation also attempts to reduce uncertainty around secondary-market token trading, an issue that has fueled years of disputes between crypto firms and regulators.

At the same time, the bill expands anti-money laundering, sanctions, and compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries.

Retail users may gain clarity but lose easy yield

For retail users, the bill creates a mixed outcome.

Consumers could benefit from:

  • clearer legal status for digital assets,
  • stronger reserve and disclosure requirements,
  • and broader access to regulated crypto services.

However, users may lose one of the biggest advantages stablecoins offered during recent years: simple passive yield opportunities outside the banking system.

That tradeoff appears central to the ongoing negotiations in Washington.

The broader debate now centers on whether stablecoins should evolve into open blockchain-based financial products or remain tightly constrained digital payment tools operating alongside the traditional banking system.


Final Summary

  • A new U.S. crypto bill would restrict passive yield on payment stablecoins while expanding broader crypto market protections.
  • Banks support the limits, while crypto firms argue the provisions weaken one of stablecoins’ biggest retail advantages.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main controversial provision in the newly released U.S. crypto market structure draft bill?

AThe main controversial provision is the proposed ban on interest or yield payments tied to payment stablecoins, which would prohibit issuers from offering interest-like returns to U.S. users simply for holding such stablecoins.

QWhy are traditional banks supportive of the restrictions on stablecoin yields?

ATraditional banks fear that yield-bearing stablecoins could function like blockchain-based savings accounts and pull deposits away from the traditional banking system, bypassing its regulatory framework and competing directly with interest-bearing bank deposits.

QWhat did crypto executives and pro-crypto lawmakers argue regarding the bill's compromises?

AThey argued that the crypto industry has already made significant compromises to move legislation forward, with figures like Paul Grewal noting that the banking industry's demand to ban 'idle yield' on stablecoins has been met.

QWhat are some of the broader protections for the crypto industry included in the draft bill?

AThe bill creates legal categories for network tokens and digital commodities, provides clearer registration pathways for crypto firms, protects lawful self-custody through self-hosted wallets, and attempts to reduce uncertainty around secondary-market token trading.

QWhat is the potential mixed outcome for retail crypto users according to the article?

ARetail users may gain benefits like clearer legal status for digital assets, stronger reserve requirements, and broader access to regulated services. However, they may lose the simple passive yield opportunities that stablecoins offered outside the traditional banking system.

Похожее

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit13 мин. назад

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit13 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit20 мин. назад

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit20 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit32 мин. назад

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit32 мин. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы

Популярные статьи

Как купить BAN

Добро пожаловать на HTX.com! Мы сделали приобретение Comedian (BAN) простым и удобным. Следуйте нашему пошаговому руководству и отправляйтесь в свое крипто-путешествие.Шаг 1: Создайте аккаунт на HTXИспользуйте свой адрес электронной почты или номер телефона, чтобы зарегистрироваться и бесплатно создать аккаунт на HTX. Пройдите удобную регистрацию и откройте для себя весь функционал.Создать аккаунтШаг 2: Перейдите в Купить криптовалюту и выберите свой способ оплатыКредитная/Дебетовая Карта: Используйте свою карту Visa или Mastercard для мгновенной покупки Comedian (BAN).Баланс: Используйте средства с баланса вашего аккаунта HTX для простой торговли.Третьи Лица: Мы добавили популярные способы оплаты, такие как Google Pay и Apple Pay, для повышения удобства.P2P: Торгуйте напрямую с другими пользователями на HTX.Внебиржевая Торговля (OTC): Мы предлагаем индивидуальные услуги и конкурентоспособные обменные курсы для трейдеров.Шаг 3: Хранение Comedian (BAN)После приобретения вами Comedian (BAN) храните их в своем аккаунте на HTX. В качестве альтернативы вы можете отправить их куда-либо с помощью перевода в блокчейне или использовать для торговли с другими криптовалютами.Шаг 4: Торговля Comedian (BAN)С легкостью торгуйте Comedian (BAN) на спотовом рынке HTX. Просто зайдите в свой аккаунт, выберите торговую пару, совершайте сделки и следите за ними в режиме реального времени. Мы предлагаем удобный интерфейс как для начинающих, так и для опытных трейдеров.

740 просмотров всегоОпубликовано 2024.10.27Обновлено 2026.06.02

Как купить BAN

Обсуждения

Добро пожаловать в Сообщество HTX. Здесь вы сможете быть в курсе последних новостей о развитии платформы и получить доступ к профессиональной аналитической информации о рынке. Мнения пользователей о цене на BAN (BAN) представлены ниже.

活动图片