US Banks Push Back on Stablecoin Interest Amid Deposit Flight Fears

🔑 Key Takeaways

• U.S. banks lobby to block stablecoin interest policies, fearing $6.6 trillion in potential deposit flight.

• GENIUS Act bars banks from paying yield on their own stablecoins, but allows crypto exchanges to do so with third-party tokens.

• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent highlights stablecoins as potential buyers of U.S. government debt.

---

🗞 Main Story

The debate over stablecoins in the U.S. has escalated following the passage of the GENIUS Act. Banking lobby groups, including the American Bankers Association, argue that allowing interest-bearing stablecoins could lead to an unprecedented deposit flight worth trillions of dollars. Their concern is that consumers, drawn to higher yields, would move savings from traditional accounts into stablecoins offered by exchanges such as Circle and Tether.

Under the new framework, banks are explicitly prohibited from paying interest on stablecoins they issue, while crypto platforms face no such restriction. This discrepancy has created sharp tensions: banks claim the playing field is tilted, while crypto advocates argue that Wall Street is trying to choke innovation to protect its own profits.

At the same time, the political narrative is shifting. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has emphasized that stablecoins could serve as legitimate purchasers of U.S. government debt, integrating them into fiscal management. That view signals that stablecoins are no longer dismissed as speculative tools, but are beginning to be considered part of the wider monetary system.

This growing clash highlights the dual reality: banks resisting to protect deposit bases, while policymakers explore how stablecoins might reinforce financial infrastructure rather than undermine it.

---

🔬 Expert Opinions

• American Bankers Association (lobby group):
  “Stablecoin yield products risk draining trillions in deposits from the banking sector, weakening lending capacity.”

• Scott Bessent (U.S. Treasury Secretary):
  “Stablecoins could play a role in supporting government debt markets and deepening digital financial integration.”

---

🌟 Implications

The outcome of this confrontation will shape whether stablecoins remain at the periphery or move into the heart of U.S. fiscal operations. A bank-led victory could restrict adoption, but Treasury’s support suggests stablecoins may soon be woven into official policy.

---

🛬 Sources

• Bloomberg – “US Banks Resist Yield-Bearing Stablecoins Over Deposit Flight Concerns”

• Reuters – “Regulators, banks split over stablecoin deposit impact”

• CoinDesk – “Banking sector cautious on tokenized deposits and yield stablecoins”

📝 Editorial Opinion

Banks’ Fear of Deposit Loss Is Outdated—DeFi Signals a Structural Shift

The banking industry’s opposition to stablecoin yields exposes a deep contradiction: it fears losing deposits, yet its business model has long relied on fractional reserves and credit creation. For decades, banks have issued loans far exceeding actual deposits—effectively profiting from money that doesn’t exist in physical form. To now argue that stablecoins destabilize deposits reveals a selective concern: they fear competition, not instability.

Stablecoins emerged precisely because users demand speed, transparency, and flexibility. Transfers settle in minutes, not days; balances are verifiable on-chain, not hidden in opaque ledgers. When banks lobby regulators to erect barriers—such as banning yield on bank-issued stablecoins—they aren’t protecting consumers; they are protecting legacy margins.

Consider the numbers. U.S. savings accounts typically pay 0.4–1% interest annually, while DeFi platforms like Aave or Compound, even in conservative lending pools, often yield 3–6%. During bull cycles, yield farming on protocols such as Curve or Uniswap offered double-digit returns. Most citizens are still unaware of this discrepancy, which temporarily shields banks. But once yield awareness spreads, the migration from low-interest deposits to DeFi products will accelerate.

Regulators add another layer of contradiction. On one hand, they restrict banks from innovating; on the other, they experiment with government-issued stablecoins. This inconsistency undermines credibility. If stablecoins are good enough to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested, why should private banks be barred from offering similar products? The inconsistency makes stablecoins look like political tools rather than neutral innovations.

The truth is structural: in a world where blockchain ensures settlement finality and smart contracts automate lending, the role of banks will inevitably shrink. Their monopoly on deposit-taking and credit intermediation is eroding. Each attempt to block stablecoins only highlights the inefficiency of legacy systems and drives innovators further toward decentralized finance.

History shows that entrenched incumbents often resist until disruption overwhelms them. Kodak clung to film despite inventing the digital camera. Taxi unions fought ride-sharing platforms but lost ground to Uber and Grab. Banks face the same dilemma: cling to old models or adapt to digital liquidity.

Far from being a threat, this shift could be a stabilizer. By migrating from opaque, leverage-driven banking to transparent, collateralized DeFi systems, economies could reduce systemic risk and end recurring financial bubbles. Stablecoins, if regulated sensibly, could act as bridges between state fiscal policy and decentralized innovation.

In the end, lobbying to shield outdated models is not only counterproductive—it accelerates obsolescence. If banks want relevance in the next decade, they must innovate beyond fear, embrace blockchain rails, and design services that add value beyond what DeFi already offers. Otherwise, their decline won’t just be inevitable—it will be deserved.