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

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

The AI boom is facing an unexpected bottleneck: a severe shortage of skilled construction workers and electricians. As tech giants like Meta, OpenAI, and Alphabet race to build massive data centers—such as OpenAI's $16 billion "Stargate" project—they are hitting a critical labor wall. The U.S. needs an estimated 130,000 more electricians, 240,000 construction workers, and 150,000 supervisors by 2030 for AI infrastructure alone, but tens of thousands of electrician jobs go unfilled each year. While AI companies offer high premiums, with electricians earning up to $280,000 annually, worker scarcity still causes massive losses—delays on a single project can cost $14.2 million per month. The complexity of building AI data centers, which require immense power (equivalent to powering hundreds of thousands of homes), sophisticated electrical systems, and advanced liquid cooling solutions, demands highly skilled technicians who are in short supply. To combat this, companies are investing heavily in training. Meta has committed $115 million to a free training school offering tuition, housing, and stipends, targeting 5,000 new workers. OpenAI is partnering with unions to secure skilled labor. These efforts are paying off, with a significant rise in Gen Z interest in trade schools over college. However, the power demands are staggering. AI data centers are driving a rapid surge in electricity consumption, projected to account for up to 12% of U.S. power use by 2028 and raising costs for consumers. Furthermore, the construction boom is project-based, leading to a potential future glut of trained workers once building peaks, which could depress wages industry-wide. The race for AI supremacy now depends as much on skilled hands as on advanced chips.

marsbit1 saat önce

Annual Salary of Millions Competing for Electricians, Meta Rushes to Open Its Own Technical School

marsbit1 saat önce

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

OpenAI is shifting its business strategy away from promoting its most expensive, flagship models for every task. Recent price cuts—80% for GPT-5.6 Luna and 20% for Terra—signal a deeper change: the company now actively advises users that many tasks don't require the most powerful model. Instead, OpenAI recommends a tiered approach: use the high-end GPT-5.6 Sol for complex planning and analysis, then delegate execution to cheaper models like Luna. This mirrors moves by Anthropic, which recently launched Claude Opus 5 at half the price of its top model, Fable 5. Both companies are de-emphasizing flagship models as primary revenue drivers, using them instead for brand prestige and technological showcases. The industry is entering a "mass-market" phase, similar to automotive, where high-volume, cost-effective models handle daily operations and drive scale. OpenAI's price reductions are partly enabled by AI models themselves optimizing underlying code and infrastructure, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of efficiency gains and cost reduction. Competition is shifting from "who is smartest" to "who offers the best value." The goal is no longer selling individual models but fostering widespread API adoption and ecosystem lock-in. By making AI calls cheap and ubiquitous, companies like OpenAI aim to become the indispensable, utility-like infrastructure powering automated workflows—the "water and electricity" of software, quietly embedded everywhere.

marsbit1 saat önce

OpenAI No Longer Sells Its Most Expensive Model for Profit

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片