Banks’ Concerns Over Stablecoin Interest Payments Are ‘Totally Absurd’, Circle CEO Says

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-23Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-23

Анотація

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire dismissed banking industry concerns over interest payments on stablecoins as "totally absurd," arguing that fears of massive deposit flight are unfounded. Speaking at the World Economic Forum, he compared stablecoin rewards to other common financial products like credit cards, emphasizing their role in customer engagement rather than systemic risk. Allaire countered bank claims that stablecoins could drain up to $6 trillion in deposits, noting that similar concerns emerged with money market funds yet lending continued unaffected. He highlighted the shift toward private credit and capital markets, asserting that stablecoins should function as safe, regulated cash instruments while lending evolves independently through new models.

The CEO of stablecoin issuer Circle has weighed in on the importance of stablecoin rewards and why he believes the banking industry’s concerns about interest payments on these assets are “absurd.”

Circle CEO Rejects Banks’ Stablecoin Fears

Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Circle’s CEO, Jeremy Allaire, discussed banks’ growing concerns that paying interest on stablecoins poses a threat to the industry, calling the deposit flight narrative “totally absurd.”

The banking sector has expressed concerns about stablecoin rewards, arguing that interest payments will distort market dynamics and affect credit creation. In the US, banks have heavily criticized the GENIUS Act, claiming that it has loopholes that could pose risks to the financial system.

The executive rejected the sector’s general arguments, citing historical and practical reasons. He asserted that this exact argument has been historically used when new financial products, such as government money market funds, have emerged.

Notably, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan recently compared the digital assets to money market mutual funds, which require reserves to be held in short-term instruments, such as US Treasuries, reducing lending capacity in the system.

The executive told investors that the banking sector, small- and medium-sized businesses in particular, could face significant challenges if the US Congress does not prohibit interest-bearing stablecoins, as up to $6 trillion in deposits, or 30% to 35% of all US commercial bank deposits, could flow out of the banking system and into the stablecoin sector.

However, Allaire pointed out that, despite institutions claiming that financial products would “draw all the deposit base,” their growth has not “stopped the ability for lending to happen.”

The importance Of Rewards

Circle’s CEO also argued that stablecoins should not be singled out when rewards for other financial products exist and contribute to the system. “Those rewards (...) exist in every balance that you have with a credit card that you use. They exist around so many other financial products and services that we have,” he detailed.

“These rewards are actually very important,” Allaire continued. “They help with stickiness, they help with customer traction. They are not themselves like these huge monetary policy dampers.”

Most importantly, he pointed out that lending is moving away from the risk-taking of banks, with “a huge amount of lending is moving towards private credit.”

He cited a Wednesday WEF panel, in which a capital markets participant highlighted how the vast majority of GDP growth in the United States was “formed by capital market formation around junk bonds.”

“So private credit issuing junk bonds, capitalizing the build out of the American technology advancements, not bank credit,” the executive added.

Previously, Coinbase Institute shared a similar argument, affirming that “credit is evolving, not shrinking. Lending is shifting to private credit, fintech, and DeFi channels that don’t depend on deposits. Liquidity moves—it doesn’t vanish.”

Allaire concluded that “we want stablecoin money to be cash instrument money, prudentially supervised, very, very safe money. And then I think what we want to do is we want to build models for lending that build on top of stablecoins.”

The total crypto market capitalization is at $2.98 trillion in the one-week chart. Source: TOTAL on TradingView

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire's view on banks' concerns about interest payments on stablecoins?

AJeremy Allaire calls the banking industry's concerns about interest payments on stablecoins 'totally absurd' and rejects the narrative that they pose a threat to the industry or will cause significant deposit flight.

QAccording to the banking sector, what risk does the GENIUS Act pose?

ABanks have criticized the GENIUS Act, claiming it has loopholes that could distort market dynamics, affect credit creation, and pose risks to the overall financial system.

QWhat historical financial product does Allaire compare stablecoins to when refuting the banks' arguments?

AAllaire compares stablecoins to government money market funds, which also faced similar criticisms when they emerged, yet their growth did not stop the ability for lending to happen.

QHow much in bank deposits could potentially flow into the stablecoin sector according to the concerns raised by bank executives?

ABank executives warned that up to $6 trillion in deposits, or 30% to 35% of all US commercial bank deposits, could flow out of the banking system and into the stablecoin sector if interest-bearing stablecoins are not prohibited.

QWhere does Jeremy Allaire argue that lending is increasingly moving towards?

AAllaire argues that a huge amount of lending is moving away from traditional banks and towards private credit, fintech, and DeFi channels, citing the growth of the junk bond market as an example of capital formation that doesn't rely on bank credit.

Пов'язані матеріали

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手6 год тому

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手6 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit8 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit8 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手9 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手9 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit10 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit10 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片