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

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-13Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-13

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit3 год тому

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit3 год тому

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手3 год тому

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手3 год тому

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit5 год тому

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit5 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片