The GENIUS Act can drain $6.6T from U.S. banks – THIS is how

ambcrypto发布于2026-01-08更新于2026-01-08

文章摘要

The GENIUS Act of 2025 has drawn sharp criticism from major U.S. banks, warning it could drain $6.6 trillion from the banking system due to a regulatory loophole. Banking groups, including the Bank Policy Institute, argue that the act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest but allows crypto affiliate companies to offer high yields, effectively acting as shadow banks. This could trigger massive migration of deposits away from traditional banks, potentially restricting credit access for mortgages and business loans. Critics like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene also opposed the act, fearing it enables a central bank digital currency (CBDC). As the stablecoin market grows—now valued at $317.8 billion—the yield loophole drives adoption. Closing it may reduce stablecoins’ appeal as high-return investments and revert them to payment tools, posing a critical question: whether Congress will act to eliminate this risk or allow crypto shadow banking to persist.

The ink is barely dry on the GENIUS Act of 2025, but a massive crack has already appeared, with the nation’s largest lenders claiming that the act could drain $6.6 trillion from the U.S. banking system.

In a letter to Congress on the 6th of January, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) and a coalition of powerful banking groups issued a warning.

The letter highlighted a major loophole in the new stablecoin rules, one that lets crypto exchanges operate like high-yield shadow banks.

The chaos around the GENIUS Act

The GENIUS Act bans stablecoin issuers from paying interest, but banks say their affiliate companies are dodging the rule by offering yields that regular savings accounts could never match.

This has sparked fears of a major shift in how Americans store their money.

If stablecoins turn from a payment tool into a high-interest investment, the BPI warns it could trigger a deposit migration.

Such a shift wouldn’t just hurt bank balance sheets.

It could cut off credit to Main Street, making mortgages, business loans, and farm financing harder to get.

The tension isn’t new

During the floor debates leading up to the act’s passage in July 2025, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene emerged as a vocal critic, though for vastly different reasons.

She said,

“Back in July, I voted NO on the GENIUS Act because it contained a back door to a central bank digital currency (CBDC).”

Greene added,

“I support crypto but I will never support giving the government the ability to turn off your ability to have full control of your money and to buy and sell.”

And, to date, the loopholes seem not to have been addressed.

Recently, providing clarity on the GENIUS Act, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, noted,

“The problem with a GENIUS Act-like approach is that it is focused only on stablecoins, providing no way to balance competition between stablecoins and other payment mechanisms.”

However, as a solution, he further added,

“A better approach would have a comprehensive approach to regulation, i.e., a Clarity Act, and seek to put all traditional and digital payments and assets on a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may.”

Stablecoin market dynamics

Meanwhile, the total stablecoin market cap surged to $317.8 billion, dominated by Tether (USDT) and Circle’s USDC.

For perspective, USDT alone commanded a market cap of roughly $187 billion, while USDC has seen an aggressive 73% growth over the last year, reaching $75 billion.

As stablecoins continue to grow, the yield loophole has become their main driver of adoption, but closing it could trigger a major shift.

If Congress blocks exchanges from offering interest or rewards, stablecoins may lose their appeal as high-return savings alternatives and be forced back into their original role as simple payment tools.

Thus, this warning signals that crypto’s shadow-banking era is nearing its end, leaving one pressing question: if the rewards vanish, does the $317 billion stay?


Final Thoughts

  • The stablecoin loophole has officially escalated from a regulatory oversight to a systemic risk that banks can no longer ignore.
  • With $317 billion already parked in stablecoins, Congress must decide whether to shut the loophole or risk letting the crypto shadow banking system remain.

相关问答

QWhat is the main concern raised by the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) regarding the GENIUS Act?

AThe BPI warns that a loophole in the GENIUS Act could drain $6.6 trillion from the U.S. banking system by allowing crypto exchanges to operate like high-yield shadow banks, potentially triggering a massive deposit migration.

QHow are affiliate companies of banks reportedly circumventing the GENIUS Act's ban on stablecoin issuers paying interest?

AAffiliate companies are dodging the rule by offering yields on stablecoins that regular savings accounts could never match, effectively turning stablecoins into high-interest investments.

QWhat was one of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's primary reasons for voting against the GENIUS Act?

ARep. Greene voted against the act because she believed it contained a back door to a central bank digital currency (CBDC), which she opposes as it could give the government the ability to control individuals' money.

QAccording to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, what is the fundamental problem with the GENIUS Act's approach to regulation?

AHe stated that the problem is it focuses only on stablecoins and provides no way to balance competition between stablecoins and other payment mechanisms, advocating instead for a comprehensive 'Clarity Act' to create a level playing field.

QWhat is the potential consequence for the stablecoin market if Congress closes the loophole allowing exchanges to offer interest or rewards?

AIf Congress blocks exchanges from offering interest, stablecoins could lose their appeal as high-return savings alternatives and be forced back into their original role as simple payment tools, potentially destabilizing the $317 billion market.

你可能也喜欢

TradeXYZ脱离Hyperliquid单飞的可能性有多高

**TradeXYZ脱离Hyperliquid单飞的可能性分析** 随着TradeXYZ业务规模持续扩大,并长期占据Hyperliquid HIP-3市场超过90%的份额,近期社区对其是否可能脱离Hyperliquid并独立搭建交易平台的讨论升温。 **自立门户的驱动力** TradeXYZ已借助Hyperliquid成长为RWA永续合约市场的巨擘,其贡献的交易量占Hyperliquid总交易量70%以上。若选择自立门户,核心商业驱动力可能是为了**捕获全部底层交易手续费**。目前,TradeXYZ与Hyperliquid的交易费用分成固定为50/50,这意味着近一半收入归属于Hyperliquid。对于一个创造超4000亿美元交易量的项目而言,调整分成比例或独立运营以获取全部收益,具有显著吸引力。行业历史上也存在类似案例,如Uniswap、dYdX等项目在壮大后选择构建自有基础设施。 **制约与风险** 然而,TradeXYZ独立面临多重制约: 1. **性能挑战**:Hyperliquid提供了强大的底层技术(HyperCore),管理着撮合、清算等核心功能。自建同等性能的基础设施短期内难以实现,可能影响产品体验和市场叙事。 2. **渠道依赖**:尽管TradeXYZ拥有自己的交易前端,但大部分用户仍习惯通过Hyperliquid前端访问其流动性市场。Hyperliquid是其主要的分发渠道,失去渠道支持的价值难以估量。 3. **合作关系与信任**:TradeXYZ创始人Shoku是Hyperliquid的早期支持者,双方团队关系密切,存在深厚的信任基础。“背刺”合作方可能引发舆论争议,损害信誉。 **双输的潜在结局** 分析指出,若TradeXYZ真的选择分裂,很可能导致**双输局面**: * 对Hyperliquid而言,将失去最大的增长点和叙事基础(RWA合约龙头地位),总交易量可能骤降超50%,其代币HYPE估值或受重创。 * 对TradeXYZ而言,将面临从零开始构建基础设施和培养用户习惯的挑战,同时可能因竞争关系失去原有渠道优势,并在激烈的市场中被其他竞争者趁虚而入。 **结论** 综合来看,虽然TradeXYZ市场影响力日益增强,拥有议价能力,但考虑到技术依赖、渠道价值、双方信任关系以及可能引发的双输竞争,**其脱离Hyperliquid自立门户的可能性较低,也并非理智选择**。更可能的发展路径是在维持现有合作集成优势的基础上,协商更有利的条款,并逐步将发展重点向自身品牌和用户生态建设倾斜。

marsbit17分钟前

TradeXYZ脱离Hyperliquid单飞的可能性有多高

marsbit17分钟前

从韩国到美国:多亏了AI,蓝领越来越吃香了

人工智能正在重塑劳动力市场,传统四年制大学学位的吸引力下降,而电工、焊工等技术型蓝领职业的需求和薪酬显著上升。数据显示,美国职业学校收入大幅增长,同时AI导致的白领裁员创下新高。供需两端变化推动年轻人重新规划职业路径,调查显示多数Z世代认为蓝领工作在AI时代更具就业保障。 职业教育热度近半年急剧攀升,年轻人主动寻求不易被AI替代且有实际用工需求的职业,技术岗位招聘甚至比程序员更困难。专家指出,这既是经济计算,也源于对高额学位债务和纯屏幕工作的反思。技术职业薪资中位数已追平或超越许多需要学位的工作,且提供边学边赚的学徒路径及创业可能。韩国半导体高中毕业生就业率极高,进入三星等企业可获得丰厚薪酬。 美国面临结构性技术工人短缺:大量婴儿潮一代即将退休,而新一代劳动力数量不足,缺口达数百万。同时,数据中心等基建扩张推高了相关技术工种需求。为此,摩根大通、Meta等企业正投资巨额资金开展培训项目。 尽管市场信号明确,但社会对职业教育的传统偏见仍构成“认知差距”。产业界需主动推广,让公众认识到技术职业不仅收入稳定,还是通向创业的快速路径,以真正缓解人才短缺。

marsbit1小时前

从韩国到美国:多亏了AI,蓝领越来越吃香了

marsbit1小时前

交易

现货
活动图片