Banks oppose stablecoins because they disrupt a core profit center: the spread between low interest paid on deposits and high yields earned from investing those deposits in treasuries. Stablecoins can pass these yields directly to consumers, creating a competitive market.
Related Insights
The U.S. is approving stablecoins for a strategic reason: they require reserves, which must be U.S. treasuries. This policy creates a massive, new, non-traditional buyer for government debt, helping to finance enormous and growing fiscal deficits with a structural source of demand.
A Senate bill, altered from its original intent, aims to ban interest payments on stablecoins. Supported by banking associations, this move is designed to eliminate competition from crypto, solidifying the traditional banking sector's monopoly on financial services under the guise of stability.
The rise of user-friendly stablecoins and DeFi platforms, distributed by Big Tech and major banks, will lead to the demise of smaller banks. Consumers will abandon institutions with clunky technology for superior, 24/7, AI-assisted digital finance, causing a mass extinction event for traditional local banks.
The US government's backing of stablecoins is a strategic financial maneuver, not just a nod to crypto innovation. By promoting stablecoins backed by US Treasuries, it creates a new, frictionless global distribution channel to sell its debt at attractive rates to a worldwide audience.
A potential future government strategy to manage borrowing costs involves creating a special class of T-bills exclusively for stablecoin issuers. These would carry an artificially low yield, preventing issuers from profiting while providing the government with cheap capital.
Despite promising instant, cheap cross-border payments, stablecoins lack features critical for corporate treasurers. The absence of FDIC insurance, a single standard ("singleness of money"), and interoperability between blockchains makes them too risky and fragmented for wholesale use.
For stablecoin companies like Tether seeking legitimacy in the US market, the simplest path is to back their assets with US treasuries. This aligns their interests with the US government, turning a potential adversary into a welcome buyer of national debt, even if it means lower returns compared to riskier assets.
While stablecoins gain attention, tokenized deposits offer similar benefits—like on-chain transactions—but operate within the existing, trusted regulatory banking framework. As they are simply bank liabilities on a blockchain, they may become a more palatable alternative for corporates seeking efficiency without regulatory uncertainty.
A regulatory settlement forced crypto firms to pay "rewards" instead of "interest" on stablecoins. Coinbase is exploiting this semantic difference to offer a 4% yield, creating a product that functions like a high-yield checking account but without the traditional banking regulatory burdens. This is a backdoor disruption of consumer banking.
The high profits enjoyed by stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle are temporary. Major financial institutions (Visa, JPMorgan) will eventually launch their own stablecoins, not as primary profit centers, but as low-cost tools to acquire and retain customers. This will drive margins down for the entire industry.