Intense Competition Heats Up Between Banks and Crypto Firms Over Stablecoin Regulation

The debate surrounding the regulation of stablecoins in the United States has shifted to an intense competition between traditional banking institutions and the cryptocurrency sector for consumer deposits. Previously focused on the basic existence of stablecoins, the new discourse now examines whether these digital assets should offer interest-like benefits and how they should be classified and regulated.

How Do Surging Stablecoin Supplies Affect Financial Markets?

In recent months, the stablecoin market has expanded significantly, with DeFiLlama reporting a total supply reaching $311.3 billion by January 2026. This dramatic rise is steering discussions beyond theoretical debates, focusing instead on the distribution of “cash” in the financial system and identifying the primary beneficiaries of these changes. Traditional banks express concern about the shift of capital to short-term government bonds, potentially threatening their deposit-based income structures.

Are Legislative Acts Shaping a New Financial Order?

Efforts to regulate stablecoins have gained prominence against a backdrop of ongoing legal uncertainties. With the introduction of the GENIUS Act in 2025, the goal was to integrate stablecoins into a clear legal framework with strict requirements. Despite this, the act will not be enforced until 2026. Meanwhile, the CLARITY Act has sparked debate, particularly over stablecoin rewards. Banks push for wide-ranging restrictions on rewards, fueling controversy with crypto firms who argue these incentives are crucial for maintaining market competition.

Within the sector itself, there are notable disagreements. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has opposed legislative drafts limiting stablecoin rewards, while BitGo CEO Mike Belshe has critiqued the duration of debates surrounding market structure. These differing viewpoints could potentially delay progress in the Senate Banking Committee.

Several scenarios could unfold if a consensus isn’t reached:

• One scenario involves prohibiting rewards, which may increase stablecoin usage for payments and transfers, urging traditional finance to adopt the technology.
• A compromise scenario allows for limited rewards, potentially strengthening major platforms.
• The third scenario envisions a deadlock, maintaining current reward structures but hastening capital outflows from banks.

If no consensus is reached, these scenarios highlight the potential for a dramatic shift in how stablecoins influence the financial landscape, possibly leading to regulatory actions to counter systemic risks. With significant stakes for all involved parties, the outcome of these debates could define the future roles of stablecoins in the global economy.

“The unresolved debate over stablecoin regulations could redefine how financial markets operate and determine who benefits most in this evolving landscape,” remarked BitGo CEO Mike Belshe, highlighting the urgency for clarity.