Crypto Industry Voices Opposition To Potential Limits On Stablecoin Rewards In Legislation

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2025-12-19Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-19

Анотація

A coalition of cryptocurrency firms, led by the Blockchain Association, is urging the Senate Banking Committee to reject provisions in the recently passed GENIUS Act that could restrict stablecoin rewards. The legislation currently prohibits stablecoin issuers from offering interest but allows third-party platforms to provide rewards. The banking industry argues this is a loophole that could lead to deposit outflows, while crypto advocates maintain the law strikes a necessary balance for competition. They challenge the banks' claims, citing a lack of evidence linking stablecoins to reduced bank lending and accusing them of protectionism. Democrats suggest a compromise is possible to protect the banking system while permitting rewards.

A coalition of leading cryptocurrency firms is urging lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee to reject specific provisions concerning stablecoins outlined in the recently passed GENIUS Act.

This push, coordinated by the Blockchain Association, comes as more than 125 participants from the crypto industry voice their opposition to a proposed reinterpretation of an existing prohibition on stablecoin interest.

Among the organizations backing this letter are the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the DeFi Education Fund, the Solana Policy Institute, the Digital Chamber, as well as major players like a16z Crypto, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, and Ripple.

Stablecoin Law Sparks Conflict

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump in July, is designed to set a regulatory framework for dollar-backed digital tokens, commonly known as stablecoins. A key element of this legislation is a provision that prevents stablecoin issuers from offering “any form of interest or yield.”

However, this provision has ignited a contentious debate between the crypto and banking sectors regarding its extent and the necessity for any amendments.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, addressed these concerns in comments to The Hill. “Reopening the issue before we have even started rulemaking just doesn’t make sense,” she stated, emphasizing the importance of maintaining legislative certainty.

She argued that if Congress can revisit a bill immediately after it has been enacted, it raises questions about the law’s reliability for the marketplace.

The banking industry contends that the prohibition on interest should also apply to other entities that provide rewards to holders of stablecoins. They describe this stance as a crucial measure to address what they view as a “loophole,” asserting that it undermines the original intent aimed at stabilizing the financial ecosystem.

In contrast, the cryptocurrency sector maintains that the existing law strikes a careful balance that enables stablecoins to remain competitive in the payment services market. The letter from industry leaders outlines this perspective, stating:

Congress prohibited stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to those holding stablecoins while intentionally preserving the ability of platforms, intermediaries, and other third parties to offer lawful rewards or incentives to consumers.

Crypto Industry Challenges Banking Sector Claims

At the heart of the debate are concerns from banks about potential deposit outflows. Financial institutions fear that allowing rewards could incentivize individuals to shift funds into stablecoins, thereby reducing the amount of capital available for lending.

In response to these concerns, the crypto industry has cited an analysis from Charles River Associates, which found no significant correlation between the adoption of stablecoins and levels of deposits at community banks.

Furthermore, they pointed out that it seems contradictory to claim that banks are truly constrained by deposits when approximately $2.9 trillion in bank reserves are currently earning interest at the Federal Reserve (Fed) rather than being utilized for loans.

The industry’s letter challenges the banking sector’s position, stating, “Opposition to stablecoin rewards reflects protection of incumbent revenue models, not safety and soundness concerns.”

Democrats believe that it is possible to find a balanced approach, stating, “Congress can find solutions to this issue that protect the banking system while still permitting rewards and incentives.”

The daily chart shows the continuous drop of the total crypto market cap. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

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

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main concern of the crypto industry regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe crypto industry is opposing a specific provision in the GENIUS Act that prevents stablecoin issuers from offering 'any form of interest or yield' and is challenging a proposed reinterpretation that would extend this ban to platforms and third parties offering rewards.

QWhich major organizations are backing the letter of opposition to the Senate Banking Committee?

AThe letter is backed by the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the DeFi Education Fund, the Solana Policy Institute, the Digital Chamber, as well as major firms like a16z Crypto, Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, and Ripple.

QWhat argument does the banking industry use to support extending the interest ban to third parties?

AThe banking industry argues that allowing other entities to provide stablecoin rewards creates a 'loophole' that undermines the law's original intent to stabilize the financial ecosystem and could lead to deposit outflows from banks.

QHow does the crypto industry counter the banks' concern about deposit outflows?

AThe crypto industry cites an analysis from Charles River Associates that found no significant correlation between stablecoin adoption and community bank deposit levels, and points out that banks currently have trillions in reserves earning interest at the Fed rather than being loaned out.

QWhat is the stance of Democrats on this issue according to the article?

ADemocrats believe that Congress can find a balanced solution that protects the banking system while still permitting rewards and incentives for stablecoin holders.

Пов'язані матеріали

Trend in US Stocks: A Post Triggers a 930-Point Rebound, Tonight Belongs to SpaceX

On Thursday (June 11, U.S. Eastern Time), Wall Street staged a textbook V-shaped reversal. The Dow Jones surged 929.97 points (+1.86%) to close above 50,000, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 rose 2.54% and 1.75%, respectively. The rally occurred despite the hottest PPI report in years, with May data showing a 6.5% year-on-year surge, the highest since 2022. The market ignored the inflation data, focusing instead on reports that former President Trump called off a planned strike on Iran, hinting at a potential multi-party peace agreement draft. This sparked a sharp drop in oil prices, fueling hopes that inflation may have peaked. Sector rotations were stark: previously battered AI hardware and cyclical stocks led the gains, while defensive sectors that hit record highs the prior day were sold off. Chip stocks like Micron and Intel saw sharp rebounds. In contrast, software giant Oracle plunged nearly 10% despite beating earnings, with concerns over cloud revenue and cash flow. Adobe also fell after hours despite raising guidance, as its CFO announced departure. The rally's sustainability is questioned, driven largely by social media posts about unconfirmed geopolitical developments. Inflation risks remain, with pipeline pressures still high. Meanwhile, the market's risk appetite faces a major test with SpaceX's historic IPO. Priced at $135 per share, it aims to raise ~$75 billion with a $1.75 trillion valuation, becoming the largest U.S. IPO ever. It will join the Nasdaq 100 in 15 days, triggering massive index fund buying. However, critics cite extreme valuation (88x sales) and market liquidity concerns.

marsbit15 хв тому

Trend in US Stocks: A Post Triggers a 930-Point Rebound, Tonight Belongs to SpaceX

marsbit15 хв тому

The Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Mega IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare? The capital market in 2026 is witnessing a highly anticipated wave of tech IPOs, centered on SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Collectively valued at over $3.5 trillion, their potential listing represents one of the largest such waves in recent years. This raises concerns about market liquidity, valuation bubbles, and potential capital outflows from other assets like crypto. SpaceX's valuation narrative has shifted from rocket launches to becoming a global infrastructure play via its Starlink satellite network, which now drives most revenue. Despite ongoing losses, investors focus on its long-term growth potential. OpenAI and Anthropic represent the core productivity engines of generative AI. Their public listings would offer the first direct investment opportunity in large foundation model companies, potentially triggering a repricing within the AI sector. Market fears of a massive "capital drain" from these IPOs are likely overstated. Historical precedents like Alibaba and Saudi Aramco show that mega-listings primarily cause capital reallocation, not destruction, within the vast equities market. Systemic risk is rarely triggered by IPOs alone. For stock markets, short-term volatility and sector repricing are expected, especially for AI concept stocks. Long-term, these listings could reinforce the tech sector's importance. For crypto, direct competition for speculative capital exists, particularly affecting AI-themed tokens. However, crypto's trajectory remains more tied to its own cycles, macro liquidity, and Bitcoin ETF flows rather than a single IPO event. The real risk lies not in the listings themselves but in the sky-high growth expectations embedded in these valuations. If future revenue, profitability, or commercialization progress disappoints, significant valuation resets could follow, impacting high-growth tech stocks. Ultimately, the market's direction hinges on macroeconomic conditions and whether these companies can deliver on their ambitious promises.

链捕手32 хв тому

The Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

链捕手32 хв тому

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

Title: Trillion-Dollar Valuations at Stake: Super IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic – Tech Boom or Crypto Nightmare? TL;DR: A wave of mega-tech IPOs is approaching, featuring SpaceX (targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation), OpenAI (~$852B), and Anthropic (~$965B), with a combined potential valuation exceeding $3.5 trillion. This tests the market's pricing of innovation and sparks debate on liquidity impact. * **SpaceX**'s valuation is now driven more by its Starlink global communications infrastructure than its core rocket business. * **OpenAI & Anthropic** offer the first major public investment opportunities in foundational AI models, potentially repricing the entire AI sector. * Concerns about a market-wide "liquidity drain" are likely overblown; history shows large IPOs mainly cause fund reallocation, not disappearance, and rarely trigger systemic risk. * Crypto markets, especially some AI-themed tokens, may face short-term fund competition, but their long-term trajectory depends more on macro liquidity, regulation, and Bitcoin cycles. * The real risk lies not in the IPOs themselves, but in whether these companies can justify their sky-high valuations with future revenue growth and profitability. Unmet expectations could lead to significant repricing pressure. Ultimately, these IPOs represent a massive market pricing of next-gen tech infrastructure, not a prelude to a market crash. The broader market direction will be determined by macro conditions, corporate earnings, and risk appetite.

marsbit32 хв тому

Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?

marsbit32 хв тому

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism. The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers. Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach. The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.

marsbit1 год тому

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片