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

STRC Breaks Below $95: Why Does It Continue to Depeg? Is There Default Risk?

"STRC Falls Below $95: Why the Persistent Depegging and Is There Default Risk?" The article discusses the recent decline in the price of STRC, a perpetual preferred stock issued by Strategy (MSTR) designed to trade around a $100 par value. As of publication, STRC traded at $94.65, raising market concerns. STRC is described as a high-yield cash flow product, offering an 11.50% annual dividend paid monthly. Its "preferred" status grants it priority over common stock for dividends and in liquidation. Key reasons cited for the price depegging include: 1. **Bitcoin's Price Drop:** MSTR's assets are heavily tied to Bitcoin (BTC), which fell over 21% from its recent high, pressuring all Strategy-related products. 2. **Competitive Pressure:** Rival Strive Asset Management's similar product, SATA, offers daily dividends and has maintained its $100 par value with a ~13% yield. In response, Strategy has proposed changing STRC's dividend frequency from monthly to bi-weekly, pending shareholder vote. 3. **Technical Selling:** A break below $100 may have triggered algorithmic selling and stop-losses, exacerbating the decline. Regarding default risk, the analysis suggests it is currently low. Strategy founder Michael Saylor confirmed the June 2026 dividend rate remains at 11.50% with no cuts or suspensions. The company's massive reserve of 843,706 BTC provides a significant backstop for its obligations. Industry opinions are mixed. Some analysts view the BTC holdings as reliable support for dividends, while critics like Peter Schiff warn of potential dividend cuts leading to price crashes and lawsuits. Others highlight inflation risk and the company's ability to reduce dividends without a formal default. In summary, STRC's drop is attributed to BTC volatility, competition, and technical factors. While immediate default risk appears contained, the product faces challenges from market conditions and competitive dynamics.

marsbit1 saat önce

STRC Breaks Below $95: Why Does It Continue to Depeg? Is There Default Risk?

marsbit1 saat önce

AI Trading Cools, South Korean Stocks Plunge 1.8%, Spot Gold Rises 1%, Bitcoin Dives

A sell-off in AI-related stocks, triggered by Broadcom's disappointing earnings forecast, sent shockwaves through global markets. South Korea's KOSPI led Asia's decline, plunging 1.8% as the risks from concentrated chip stock gains and surging leveraged investments came to the fore. The tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 futures fell 0.5% following Broadcom's 14% after-hours plunge, which signaled a slower-than-expected transition to AI clients. This pullback extended Wall Street's weakness, halting the S&P 500's nine-day rally amid hawkish Fed signals and renewed Middle East tensions. South Korean authorities convened an emergency meeting, pledging "immediate measures" against market volatility and warning of record-high stock margin debt. The adjustment rippled across assets: Bitcoin fell to around $64,000, its lowest since February, while safe-haven gold rose 1% on bargain hunting. Oil prices dipped on Middle East ceasefire news. Market analysts noted the sell-off was driven by profit-taking after massive gains, particularly in chip stocks like Samsung and SK Hynix, which now dominate the KOSPI. Wall Street banks are divided on Korea's outlook, with Goldman Sachs raising its target while Citigroup and others warn of overvaluation and a potential bubble. Bridgewater's Ray Dalio noted that great technological shifts often create bubbles. Meanwhile, Fed officials' hints at potential future rate hikes added to the cautious mood ahead of key U.S. jobs data.

华尔街日报1 saat önce

AI Trading Cools, South Korean Stocks Plunge 1.8%, Spot Gold Rises 1%, Bitcoin Dives

华尔街日报1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片