A key provision in the crypto market structure bill, which could stall its passage, is the debate over allowing third parties to pay yield on stablecoins. Regulators fear this could trigger a mass exodus of deposits from the traditional banking system, while the crypto industry views it as essential for competition.
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.
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.
Widespread adoption of blockchain, particularly stablecoins, has been hindered by a "semi-illegal" regulatory environment in the U.S. (e.g., Operation Chokepoint). Now that this barrier is removed, major financial players are racing to integrate the technology, likely making it common within a year.
For hundreds of millions in developing nations, stablecoins are not an investment vehicle but a capital preservation tool. Their core value is providing a simple hedge against high-inflation local currencies by pegging to the USD, a use case that far outweighs the desire for interest yield in those markets.
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.
While stablecoins face regulatory uncertainty, major banks like J.P. Morgan and Boney are developing a competing product: tokenized deposits. These offer the same blockchain efficiencies for fund transfers but operate within the existing, trusted banking regulatory framework, presenting a more attractive, lower-risk alternative for institutional clients.
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.
To avoid being classified as a bank, Coinbase's stablecoin model offers "rewards" for user activity like payments or trading, rather than paying interest directly on balances. This is a crucial legal distinction under new regulations allowing them to pass on yield from treasury reserves.
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 "market structure" debate in crypto regulation is about updating pre-internet laws. These laws require intermediaries like broker-dealers for trust, but blockchain makes them obsolete through cryptographic verification, creating legislative tension.