Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is a former US senator, a member of Paradigm’s Policy Council and a member of the Coinbase Global Advisory Council
China has fired a warning shot across America’s financial bow. Beijing has decreed that from the start of this year, its banks can now pay interest on digital renminbi holdings — an attempt to make their currency more attractive to hold. With the Senate Banking Committee meeting this week to consider crypto market structure legislation, it should allow stablecoin issuers, banks and non-banks, exchanges and service providers to pay interest on stablecoins — just as banks can on dollars.
When an industry asks the government for protection from competition, consumers should beware. At a moment when America’s closest competitor is making strides in digital asset technology, some US banks are pushing Congress in the opposite direction. Banks are lobbying to rewrite the Genius Act to block stablecoin holders being paid interest.
Stablecoins are crypto tokens tied to the value of a fiat currency such as the dollar. Last summer’s Genius Act requires that dollar stablecoins be backed one-for-one with cash deposits or equivalents such as short-term Treasury bills. These assets pay interest to the issuer. Absent government prohibition, competing stablecoin issuers would pass much of this interest to stablecoin owners to encourage adoption. That is exactly what the objecting banks fear.
If consumers can earn interest on their stablecoins, banks fear some will move money from their accounts, especially low-interest ones. This would force banks to more expensive funding sources and squeeze their margins. These banks want Congress to protect their margins. But the federal government should not protect certain industries’ profitability at the expense of others and consumers. Competition drives innovation and efficiency.
Many banks are embracing stablecoin technology. Some are issuing stablecoins themselves; others offer them through partnerships, while still others are experimenting with competing products such as tokenised deposits. Small banks lacking resources to develop stablecoins in-house will soon offer white-label stablecoins. The marketplace, not the government, should determine which products succeed.
But the arguments of a significant subset of the banking industry trying to stifle competition don’t hold up to scrutiny. Such critics claim interest-bearing stablecoins will cause a systemically destabilising drain on banking deposits. But it’s already possible to earn returns on stablecoins (just not from issuers) and mass migration hasn’t happened.
Over five years, stablecoin issuance grew from $5bn in 2020 to roughly $300bn in 2025. But that is just 2 per cent of bank deposits, which have grown from $13.2tn to around $18.5tn over the same period. This proves stablecoin adoption doesn’t necessarily reduce bank deposits. Economic growth lifts deposits and stablecoins alike. The financial system has room for both traditional banking and innovative digital assets to thrive.
And if some money migrated from demand deposits into stablecoins, that might enhance systemic stability. Traditional banks borrow over short timeframes and lend over longer ones — a structure that carries risk from runs on deposits, as recent failures remind us. Stablecoin issuers must hold cash and cash equivalents. They take no credit risk and their assets’ maturities match their liabilities’, eliminating the mismatch that contributes to bank fragility. Runs on fully backed stablecoins are implausible but, if they did occur, they would be manageable as redemption demands could be met immediately with highly liquid assets.
Some claim interest-paying stablecoin issuers should be considered banks and subject to full bank regulatory requirements. But since stablecoin issuers take no credit risk, make no loans and have no maturity mismatch between their assets and liabilities, subjecting them to complex prudential banking regulations would make no sense.
History offers a lesson. In the 1970s many banks, fearing what they saw as competition, opposed ATMs, warning of job losses and the erosion of personal banking relationships. Today’s resistance to stablecoins echoes that same protectionist impulse.
The choice now is to protect incumbent banks or protect America’s competitive edge. While China moves aggressively in the digital asset space, Congress should choose innovation over protectionism. Stablecoins are a safer, faster, more efficient way to move dollars. The marketplace, not regulatory favouritism, should determine which products succeed.
This article has been amended to correct the biographical description of the writer
