Clash Over Stablecoin Legislation: Big Banks Vs. The Crypto Industry

bitcoinist2026-01-14 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-14 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The Senate Banking Committee's updated crypto market structure bill (CLARITY Act) has sparked a new battle over the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulation. Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger claims the "Big Bank lobby" is pressuring Congress to revisit settled stablecoin reward legislation to suppress competition, not due to emerging risks. She argues that big banks, controlling assets equivalent to 60% of US GDP, offer low savings yields (0.39%) compared to the Federal Funds rate (3.50%-3.75%), and lobby against technologies providing better consumer returns by invoking "systemic risk" claims. Expert Omid Malekan criticized the notion that stablecoin holders shouldn't earn yields, advocating that interest from Treasury bills should benefit average Americans rather than bank executives. He cited JPMorgan's $25 billion net interest income as evidence of banks profiting from low saver returns, dismissing concerns that interest-paying stablecoins would harm lending. Both advocate for policies prioritizing consumer choice and fair returns.

As the Senate Banking Committee unveiled the updated draft of the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, another critical battle is unfolding surrounding the GENIUS Act, which focuses on stablecoin regulations. The banking lobby is pressing for significant changes, particularly regarding stablecoin rewards.

Are Big Banks Disrupting Stablecoin Competition?

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association and a prominent advocate for the crypto industry in Congress negotiations, took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to highlight the current state of discussions following the bipartisan passage of the GENIUS Act.

She claimed that the “Big Bank lobby” is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation concerning stablecoin rewards, not due to emerging risks but rather to suppress competition that benefits consumers.

Mersinger stated, “When Big Banks face competition, they don’t improve services. They lobby to handicap alternatives. And the consumer suffers.”

The firm’s CEO pointed out that the average American savings account currently yields only 0.39%, while checking accounts offer an even lower rate of 0.07%. In contrast, the Federal Funds rate hovers between 3.50% and 3.75%.

She argued that this discrepancy is not merely a product of market forces but stems from a substantial barrier that the major banks have constructed, preventing customers from accessing better returns.

Mersinger emphasized that the dominance of the six largest US banks, which control assets equivalent to 60% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), only reinforces this trend.

She further stressed that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the banks’ immediate response is to invoke claims of “systemic risk” while lobbying against these advancements.

Ultimately, Mersinger and her colleagues are advocating for policies that prioritize consumer options. “We urge Congress to listen,” she implored, signaling the importance of the ongoing debate between the two sectors.

Expert Advocates For Fair Returns

Market expert Omid Malekan also weighed in, criticizing the notion that stablecoin holders should not earn yields, arguing that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans rather than lining the pockets of bank executives and shareholders.

Malekan called for a broader discussion on capping credit card interest rates and swipe fees, along with the implementation of a windfall profit tax on the net interest margins of banks. He asserted, “An industry this anti-competition and consumer choice should suffer the consequences.”

Support for Malekan’s view was reinforced by recent earnings reports from major banks. This morning, JPMorgan Chase announced $25 billion in net interest income, illustrating the profits generated by not providing higher returns to savers. Malekan dismissed claims that stablecoins paying interest would harm lending as unfounded.

The daily chart shows the surge in the total crypto market cap on Tuesday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

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

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the main conflict described in the article regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe main conflict is between the big bank lobby and the crypto industry. The banking lobby is pushing Congress to revisit settled legislation on stablecoin rewards, which the crypto industry argues is an attempt to suppress competition rather than address any emerging risks.

QAccording to Summer Mersinger, what is the average yield on a US savings account and how does it compare to the Federal Funds rate?

AAccording to Summer Mersinger, the average US savings account yields 0.39% and the average checking account yields 0.07%. This is in stark contrast to the Federal Funds rate, which is between 3.50% and 3.75%.

QWhat argument does Omid Malekan make about who should benefit from the interest revenue generated by Treasury bills?

AOmid Malekan argues that the interest revenue generated from taxpayer-backed Treasury bills should be directed to average Americans, rather than going to bank executives and shareholders.

QWhat recent financial report was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers?

AA recent earnings report from JPMorgan Chase, which announced $25 billion in net interest income, was used to support the argument that banks are profiting from not providing higher returns to savers.

QWhat does Summer Mersinger claim is the typical response from big banks when new technologies offer consumers better returns?

ASummer Mersinger claims that when new technologies arise that can provide consumers with superior returns, the big banks' immediate response is to invoke claims of 'systemic risk' while lobbying against these advancements.

İlgili Okumalar

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit43 dk önce

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit43 dk önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 saat önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片