U.S. community banks are urging lawmakers to close a perceived “loophole” in the GENIUS Act that allows crypto exchanges to offer yield on stablecoins, arguing it creates unfair competition with traditional banks and could accelerate deposit outflows.U.S. community banks are urging lawmakers to close a perceived “loophole” in the GENIUS Act that allows crypto exchanges to offer yield on stablecoins, arguing it creates unfair competition with traditional banks and could accelerate deposit outflows.

U.S. Community Banks Push to Close GENIUS Act Stablecoin “Yield Loophole”

2026/01/07 13:29
News Brief
U.S. community banks are urging lawmakers to close a perceived “loophole” in the GENIUS Act that allows crypto exchanges to offer yield on stablecoins, arguing it creates unfair competition with traditional banks and could accelerate deposit outflows.

Summary

U.S. community banks are urging lawmakers to close a perceived “loophole” in the GENIUS Act that allows crypto exchanges to offer yield on stablecoins, arguing it creates unfair competition with traditional banks and could accelerate deposit outflows.

What Banks Are Objecting To

  • Stablecoin yield products offered by exchanges
  • Ability to provide interest‑like returns without being banks
  • Potential for consumers to treat yield‑bearing stablecoins as deposit substitutes

Banks argue this activity looks economically similar to deposits but operates outside the full banking regulatory framework.

Why This Matters

  • Competitive pressure: Yield‑bearing stablecoins can attract funds away from community banks
  • Regulatory boundary debate: Where to draw the line between payments, securities, and banking
  • Policy precedent: How this issue is resolved could shape the future of on‑chain finance in the U.S.

At stake is whether stablecoin issuers and exchanges can compete on yield without bank charters.

The Counterargument

Crypto advocates contend that:

  • Stablecoin yields often come from market activity or reserves, not lending deposits
  • Users are not guaranteed principal the same way bank deposits are
  • Innovation should not be constrained to protect incumbents

They argue consumer disclosure—not prohibition—is the right approach.

Broader Implications

  • Could influence final GENIUS Act language
  • May determine whether stablecoins evolve into cash‑like instruments or yield‑bearing financial products
  • Signals rising tension as crypto competes directly with traditional banking services

Bottom Line

Community banks’ push to close the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin yield “loophole” highlights a core conflict: stablecoins are starting to compete with bank deposits. How lawmakers respond will shape whether yield remains a feature of U.S.‑regulated stablecoins—or is pushed back into the traditional banking system.

Market Opportunity
Union Logo
Union Price(U)
$0.002127
$0.002127$0.002127
+0.04%
USD
Union (U) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles published on this page are written by independent contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of MEXC. All content is intended for informational and educational purposes only and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile — please conduct your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

You May Also Like

qLabs Fires First Shot in Quantum Crypto Race — Can Coinbase Catch Up?

qLabs Fires First Shot in Quantum Crypto Race — Can Coinbase Catch Up?

The rapid progress of quantum computing is forcing the cryptocurrency industry to confront the problem that has long been treated as theoretical. Blockchains th
Share
CryptoNews2026/01/30 22:53
The Anatomy of a Self-Made Billionaire’s Mindset: How Gurhan Kiziloz Reached a $1.7B Net Worth

The Anatomy of a Self-Made Billionaire’s Mindset: How Gurhan Kiziloz Reached a $1.7B Net Worth

There are many paths to wealth in the modern economy, but the one Gurhan Kiziloz took stands out for a simple reason: he built everything himself. By 2026, the
Share
Coinstats2026/01/30 23:07
Aave DAO to Shut Down 50% of L2s While Doubling Down on GHO

Aave DAO to Shut Down 50% of L2s While Doubling Down on GHO

The post Aave DAO to Shut Down 50% of L2s While Doubling Down on GHO appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Aave DAO is gearing up for a significant overhaul by shutting down over 50% of underperforming L2 instances. It is also restructuring its governance framework and deploying over $100 million to boost GHO. This could be a pivotal moment that propels Aave back to the forefront of on-chain lending or sparks unprecedented controversy within the DeFi community. Sponsored Sponsored ACI Proposes Shutting Down 50% of L2s The “State of the Union” report by the Aave Chan Initiative (ACI) paints a candid picture. After a turbulent period in the DeFi market and internal challenges, Aave (AAVE) now leads in key metrics: TVL, revenue, market share, and borrowing volume. Aave’s annual revenue of $130 million surpasses the combined cash reserves of its competitors. Tokenomics improvements and the AAVE token buyback program have also contributed to the ecosystem’s growth. Aave global metrics. Source: Aave However, the ACI’s report also highlights several pain points. First, regarding the Layer-2 (L2) strategy. While Aave’s L2 strategy was once a key driver of success, it is no longer fit for purpose. Over half of Aave’s instances on L2s and alt-L1s are not economically viable. Based on year-to-date data, over 86.6% of Aave’s revenue comes from the mainnet, indicating that everything else is a side quest. On this basis, ACI proposes closing underperforming networks. The DAO should invest in key networks with significant differentiators. Second, ACI is pushing for a complete overhaul of the “friendly fork” framework, as most have been unimpressive regarding TVL and revenue. In some cases, attackers have exploited them to Aave’s detriment, as seen with Spark. Sponsored Sponsored “The friendly fork model had a good intention but bad execution where the DAO was too friendly towards these forks, allowing the DAO only little upside,” the report states. Third, the instance model, once a smart…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:28