🔥 Key Takeaways
- Community banks claim the GENIUS Act contains a loophole allowing stablecoin rewards to function like unregulated savings accounts.
- Stablecoin issuers and exchanges may exploit this gap, bypassing traditional banking oversight.
- The debate highlights the regulatory gray area between payment tokens and interest-bearing financial products.
- Policymakers face pressure to clarify stablecoin regulations to protect consumers and maintain financial stability.
Why US Community Banks Are Raising Concerns About the GENIUS Act
The recently proposed GENIUS Act (Governing Emerging New Technologies and Innovations in the United States) has sparked controversy among US community banks, who argue that the legislation contains a critical loophole related to stablecoins. According to banking representatives, the bill fails to clearly distinguish between stablecoins used for payments and those offering rewards—effectively allowing crypto exchanges to operate like unregulated savings institutions.
The Stablecoin Loophole Explained
Community banks allege that exchanges and stablecoin issuers are exploiting the GENIUS Act’s ambiguous language by offering yield-bearing products that resemble traditional savings accounts—without adhering to the same regulatory requirements. Under current banking laws, deposit-taking institutions must comply with strict capital, liquidity, and consumer protection rules. However, stablecoin rewards programs, often marketed as “staking” or “yield farming,” operate in a legal gray area.
Banks argue that this loophole creates an uneven playing field, as crypto platforms can attract deposits with high-yield stablecoin products while avoiding federal oversight. “If it walks like a savings account and quacks like a savings account, it should be regulated like one,” said one banking industry representative.
Regulatory Uncertainty and Market Risks
The debate underscores the broader challenge of regulating stablecoins, which serve dual purposes as payment instruments and speculative assets. While some stablecoins are designed purely for transactions (like USDC or PayPal’s PYUSD), others—particularly those offered by centralized exchanges—promise returns through lending or decentralized finance (DeFi) integrations.
Critics warn that without clear guidelines, consumers could be exposed to risks similar to those seen during the 2022 crypto crash, where yield-bearing products collapsed due to unsustainable business models. The Federal Reserve and SEC have previously flagged concerns about stablecoins blurring the lines between securities and currencies.
What’s Next for Stablecoin Regulation?
Policymakers are under increasing pressure to address these concerns. The GENIUS Act, intended to provide a regulatory framework for digital assets, may need revisions to explicitly define whether interest-bearing stablecoin products fall under banking, securities, or payment laws. Some proposals suggest requiring stablecoin issuers to obtain banking charters or limiting rewards to licensed entities.
As the debate continues, the outcome could shape the future of stablecoins in the US—either integrating them into the traditional financial system or restricting their use to pure payment functions.
Read Also Epochs
