Banks Demand Crackdown on Stablecoin Interest Loophole

Federal lawmakers are grappling with a surge of feedback following the Senate’s release of its discussion draft of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, aimed at defining the regulatory framework for digital assets. With a compressed input window and wide-ranging submissions from banking associations, regulators and web3 groups, attention has quickly centred on stablecoin interest—an area of mounting concern.

Provisions introduced by the House’s CLARITY Act placed digital assets under Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight, but the Senate’s RFI Act grants the Securities and Exchange Commission primary regulatory authority over so-called “ancillary assets” while still permitting CFTC consultation on specific rules. The RFI Act also empowers banks to engage in activities such as custody, lending, market-making and even operating blockchain nodes, alongside instructing the SEC to craft a new rule to determine what constitutes an investment contract, potentially supplanting the decades-old Howey Test.

While the SEC-centric approach aims to resolve ambiguity in digital asset regulation, banking groups are alarmed by what they describe as a critical loophole in the GENIUS Act—the stablecoin law recently enacted. Although the GENIUS Act forbade stablecoin issuers themselves from paying interest on token holdings, it does not explicitly block affiliated intermediaries from offering yield-like rewards. This is of particular relevance to Coinbase, which ends its joint issuance role in USDC but still enables clients to earn approximately 4.1 percent via “rewards” on their holdings.

Major banking associations, including the American Bankers Association and the Bank Policy Institute among others, have urged Congress to plug this gap. Their position is clear: yielding through affiliates risks siphoning deposits from traditional banks, potentially destabilising credit provision and triggering deposit outflows that could amount to trillions.

Coinbase disputes accusations of exploiting the loophole, characterising its model as a legitimate separation between issuers and intermediaries. Nonetheless, concerns endure that such practices undercut the intent of the GENIUS Act, which aimed to draw boundaries between stablecoin issuers and banking functions.

Meanwhile, the RFI Act has divided opinion in the Senate. Democratic senators, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren, warn that redefining digital assets as “ancillary” could erode critical investor protections and financial stability. They argue that the bill would weaken the SEC’s regulatory role and expose taxpayer-backed protections such as FDIC insurance to undue risk.

On the industry front, the GENIUS Act did usher in uniform rules for payment stablecoins, mandating full backing with low-risk assets, monthly reserve disclosures, and independent audits—including attestations from CEOs or CFOs. Yet critics caution that the law stops short of safeguarding against systemic threats or conflicts of interest, particularly noting exemptions that may benefit subsidiaries of large tech firms or powerful political figures.

Academic analysis underscores the broader implications: stablecoins are increasingly viewed as pivotal to a new era of banking, often referred to as “Banking 2.0,” given their potential to enhance global transaction speed, reduce fraud and integrate new financial mechanisms—yet they also carry real risks if regulatory gaps persist.

As the Senate culture shifts from discussion to legislation, the RFI Act’s comment deadline—set for 5 August—has crystallised the debate. The responses could shape whether a stablecoin interest ban via intermediaries is codified, and determine the future balance of power between the SEC and CFTC, between innovation and investor protection, and between crypto-enabled finance and the conventional banking system.