Stablecoins not a ‘systemic risk’: Coinbase pushes back on GENIUS Act critics

ambcryptoОпубліковано о 2026-02-04Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-04

Анотація

The debate over stablecoin regulation continues between the crypto industry and traditional banks. Coinbase strongly opposes claims that stablecoins pose a "systemic risk" to the U.S. financial system. Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad argues that stablecoins follow a secure government-backed model, unlike the risky money market funds that contributed to past financial crises. Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal emphasizes that stablecoin reserves are backed dollar-for-dollar by short-term instruments like U.S. Treasuries and are not relent like traditional bank deposits. However, the proposed GENIUS Act allows stablecoin reserves to include riskier assets such as uninsured deposits and money market fund shares. Critics, including Better Markets and the Bank Policy Institute, warn this could make stablecoins vulnerable to bank-like runs. Despite ongoing discussions and a planned meeting among Senate Democrats, the future of stablecoin legislation remains uncertain, with no clear timeline for the bill's advancement.

The debate over stablecoin yields shows no signs of ending soon. At the center of the issue are two opposing sides, the crypto industry and traditional banks, both pushing for a compromise but remaining firmly divided.

Meanwhile, Coinbase has taken a strong position. The exchange has consistently pushed back against claims that stablecoins pose a “systemic risk” to the broader U.S. financial system.

Stablecoins are way safer, says Coinbase

In a recent statement, Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase’s Chief Policy Officer, dismissed claims that stablecoins mirror money market funds (MMFs), which triggered past financial crises.

Shirzad said that it was a misconception to equate risky prime MMFs that triggered the 2008 financial crisis with safer government-backed MMFs. According to Shirzad, stablecoins follow the ‘secure’ government model and will be “future safe haven.”

“But it is just the opposite (of projected financial crisis)– stablecoins will be the future safe haven.”

Another Coinbase official, Paul Grewal, the firm’s chief legal officer (CLO), echoed the same in a recent CNBC interview.

“Stablecoin issuer deposits (reserves) are not re-lent out like the fractionalized reserve system used by banks. They’re backed dollar-for-dollar in short-term instruments, principally U.S. Treasuries. They are much safer than the banks.”

Crypto bill on the lifeline

But not all the issuers’ reserves are backed by short-term bonds. The stablecoin law, the GENIUS Act, allows for the reserves to include uninsured deposits, repurchase agreement loans, and shares of MMFs.

According to Better Markets, a financial reform nonprofit, this ‘risky’ reserve composition makes stablecoin vulnerable to bank-like runs seen in 2020 and 2008.

The same framing was applied by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a lobby group for banks, which called stablecoins a ‘less regulated cousin’ of money market funds.

In fact, these arguments by Better Markets and BPI were the ones Shirzad addressed. The ongoing discussion is part of the larger push for compromise on stablecoin yield that has stalled the market structure bill.

Meanwhile, reports indicate that Democrats have planned a meeting to discuss the bill. This follows White House meeting held on the 2nd of February, to broker a stablecoin yield deal between banks and the crypto industry by the end of the month.

It remains unclear whether the bill will progress out of the Senate Banking Committee by Q1 2026.


Final Thoughts

  • Coinbase officials have maintained that stablecoins are much safer and carry less risk than banks.
  • Senate Democrats planned a meeting on the crypto bill, but uncertainty remains on the legislation’s momentum.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main argument Coinbase makes against claims that stablecoins pose a systemic risk?

ACoinbase argues that stablecoins are much safer than banks and money market funds (MMFs) because their reserves are backed dollar-for-dollar in short-term instruments like U.S. Treasuries and are not re-lent out like in the fractionalized reserve banking system.

QAccording to the article, what does the GENIUS Act allow stablecoin reserves to include?

AThe GENIUS Act allows stablecoin reserves to include uninsured deposits, repurchase agreement loans, and shares of money market funds (MMFs).

QWhich two groups are mentioned as being opposed to the crypto industry's view on stablecoins?

AThe two groups opposed to the crypto industry's view are traditional banks, represented by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), and the financial reform nonprofit Better Markets.

QWhat specific event from the past do critics cite when warning about the risks of stablecoins?

ACritics cite the bank-like runs seen in the 2008 financial crisis and in 2020 as a risk for stablecoins, comparing their reserve composition to that of risky prime money market funds (MMFs).

QWhat is the current status of the stablecoin market structure bill according to the article?

AThe bill's progress is uncertain, and it remains unclear whether it will advance out of the Senate Banking Committee by the first quarter of 2026, despite planned meetings among Democrats to discuss it.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit45 хв тому

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

marsbit45 хв тому

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit1 год тому

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit1 год тому

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

The commercialization of generative AI is facing a critical inflection point as a potential price war looms. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI is considering a significant cut to its token fees to compete with rival Anthropic, signaling a shift from a growth-at-all-costs model focused on token consumption. This move comes as both companies, reportedly losing billions on compute, prepare for IPOs, and as enterprise customers face "bill shock" from switching to usage-based token billing. Reports indicate poor ROI, with one analysis finding only 18 cents of every dollar spent on AI tokens generates user-facing value. The industry's initial phases—from flat-rate subscriptions to aggressive subsidies—have given way to a reckoning with real costs. Analysts debate the future: some predict a bifurcation between premium, high-cost models for complex tasks and cheaper alternatives for routine work, while others believe overall spending will still rise as agentic AI increases tokens per task. Notably, Chinese model DeepSeek's low-cost API is gaining traction with U.S. enterprises, adding competitive pressure. The core challenge is redefining value beyond token volume ("tokenmaxxing") toward measurable productivity ("valuemaxxing"), as the entire AI value chain, from cloud providers to chipmakers, feels the ripple effects of unsustainable pricing.

marsbit1 год тому

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片