Stablecoin Panic? Professor Says Banks Are Chasing Myths, Not Facts

bitcoinist2026-01-13 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-13 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Columbia Business School professor Omid Malekan challenges five banking industry myths about stablecoin yields, arguing that concerns holding up market structure legislation are unsubstantiated. He refutes claims that stablecoins automatically drain bank deposits or harm lending, noting that reserves are often held in Treasuries and bank accounts, which can support banking activity. Malekan emphasizes that the core issue is who captures the interest on reserve assets—banks or crypto issuers. As the Senate Banking Committee prepares to mark up a bill, community banks push to restrict yield-sharing with stablecoin users, warning of deposit flight, while negotiations continue over potential compromises.

Columbia Business School adjunct professor Omid Malekan challenged what he called five common banking-industry misunderstandings about stablecoin yields as Congress moves a market structure bill toward markup this month.

He pushed back on claims that stablecoins will automatically drain bank deposits or collapse lending, and argued the real fight is over who receives interest on the reserves that back those tokens.

“I’m disappointed that market structure legislation seems to be held up by the stablecoin yield issue,” he said. “Most of the concerns bouncing around Washington are based on unsubstantiated myths,” Malekan added.

Misconceptions About Stablecoin Yields

Based on reports, Malekan listed five specific points where industry talking points have wandered from the facts. He said stablecoins are fully reserved in many cases, and that issuers often park reserves in Treasury bills and bank accounts — activity that can feed, not sap, banking business.

He also noted that much US credit is delivered outside community banks, through money market funds and private lenders, so the link between stablecoins and bank lending is not as direct as some industry statements imply.

Banks Press Lawmakers Over Yield Rules

Lawmakers are racing to settle those questions before a committee markup. The Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up the market structure text on January 15, 2026, and sources say negotiators remain split on whether to restrict third-party yield arrangements tied to stablecoins.

Community banks and trade groups have urged senators to close what they call “yield loopholes,” saying unregulated rewards could lure deposits away and raise liquidity risks.

BTCUSD trading at $91,860 on the 24-hour chart: TradingView

Who Captures The Interest Matters

Malekan focused attention on the distribution of interest from reserve assets. According to his comments, the policy choice is not about banning stablecoins but about deciding whether banks or crypto issuers capture returns on reserves.

If issuers are allowed to share interest or rewards with customers, that could pressure bank profits — a point banks are making loudly in hearings and letters to lawmakers.

File Drafting And Last-Minute Haggling

Reports have disclosed that committee staff were racing to file a bipartisan market structure text and reconcile yield language ahead of a deadline this week. Negotiations continued into late sessions as senators weighed compromises that could allow some forms of rewards while guarding against run risks and bank disintermediation.

Featured image from Global Finance Magazine, chart from TradingView

İlgili Sorular

QWhat are the main misconceptions about stablecoin yields that Professor Omid Malekan challenges?

AProfessor Malekan challenges five main misconceptions: that stablecoins will automatically drain bank deposits, collapse lending, and that they are not fully reserved. He argues that reserves are often parked in Treasury bills and bank accounts, which can actually feed banking business.

QAccording to the article, what is the real point of contention regarding stablecoins?

AThe real point of contention is over who receives the interest on the reserves that back stablecoins—whether it will be the banks or the crypto issuers and their customers.

QWhat action are community banks and trade groups urging senators to take?

ACommunity banks and trade groups are urging senators to close what they call 'yield loopholes,' arguing that unregulated rewards could lure deposits away from banks and raise liquidity risks.

QWhen is the Senate Banking Committee scheduled to mark up the market structure bill?

AThe Senate Banking Committee is scheduled to mark up the market structure text on January 15, 2026.

QHow does Malekan describe the link between stablecoins and bank lending?

AMalekan notes that much US credit is delivered outside community banks through money market funds and private lenders, so the link between stablecoins and bank lending is not as direct as some industry statements imply.

İlgili Okumalar

Investors Are Now Hunting for AI Projects on Bilibili and Xiaohongshu

Investors Turn to Bilibili and Xiaohongshu to Source AI Projects The AI hardware boom is in full swing in 2025, with a surge in smart wearables like AI glasses, rings, toys, and companion robots. This frenzy has investors scrambling, not just sifting through business plans, but actively hunting for promising "under-the-radar" projects on youth and tech-enthusiast content platforms like Bilibili and Xiaohongshu. The logic is straightforward: for consumer-facing AI hardware, genuine user demand and potential pitfalls are often revealed earlier in public discussions, comments, and critiques on these communities than in formal pitches. As one industry insider notes, these products must ultimately be tested and understood by real people. This shift highlights a crucial challenge in the sector: user education. The success of AI hardware depends on moving beyond mere efficiency gains to fulfilling higher-order needs like "unleashing personal creativity." Products must convince users they are natural, unobtrusive additions to daily life. Early hype, as seen with devices like the Rabbit R1, often fades if the product fails to clearly solve real-world problems, leading to high return rates and market rejection. The market is now entering a shakeout phase. 2026 is seen as a year of commercial validation. Some projects have already stalled or been canceled due to market resistance, lack of differentiation, or financial woes. However, the long-term opportunity remains vast, with forecasts predicting a multi-trillion dollar global AI hardware market by 2030. The competition is intensifying. With giants like OpenAI and Meta preparing their own hardware, and Chinese companies launching diverse AI-powered products, the battle for user attention, product excellence, and market understanding is just beginning. The core principle endures: in the AI era, it remains a user-sovereign market.

marsbitŞimdi

Investors Are Now Hunting for AI Projects on Bilibili and Xiaohongshu

marsbitŞimdi

"Agents' Last Exam", Claude Fable 5 Actually Loses to GPT 5.5

Surprisingly, in the newly released "Agents' Last Exam" (ALE) benchmark from UC Berkeley, GPT-5.5 has outperformed the recently launched and highly-regarded Claude Fable 5. ALE tests AI agents on their ability to perform real-world tasks across 55 professional domains—such as 3D modeling in Siemens NX, creating game scenes in Unreal Engine, and visual effects work in Adobe After Effects—by granting them full GUI and command-line access. In the core task completion rate ranking, GPT-5.5 configurations secured the top two spots (24.0% and 23.0%), while Claude Fable 5 with Claude Code came in third (22.0%). Notably, the highest pass rate was only 24%, and the most difficult "Last-Exam" tier saw most top models, including GPT-5.5 and Fable 5, scoring zero. The benchmark also revealed significant cost and efficiency gaps: Fable 5 spent over four times more money than GPT-5.5's most expensive configuration for a slightly lower score, and was much slower. ALE differs from previous knowledge-based benchmarks by evaluating practical "ability to do" rather than static knowledge retrieval. Its tasks are derived from real expert projects, automatically scored, and designed to prevent cheating through a rotating pool of private challenges. The results suggest that high performance on traditional benchmarks does not necessarily translate to proficiency in complex, open-ended real-world work. The study also notes that agents often fail by prematurely declaring tasks complete without proper verification, and that no single model excels uniformly across all diverse domains.

marsbit6 dk önce

"Agents' Last Exam", Claude Fable 5 Actually Loses to GPT 5.5

marsbit6 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片