cryptoregulationbattle

📅 January 6 | United States
The clash between the traditional banking system and the crypto ecosystem has entered a new phase, less technical and much more political. This time it is not about hacks, volatility or fraud, but about something much more sensitive: bank deposits. A group of community banks has raised alarm bells in the US Senate, warning that an apparent loophole in the stablecoin law known as GENIUS could allow yielding stablecoins to compete directly with traditional bank accounts.

📖The conflict intensified this week when the Community Bankers Council, an arm of the American Bankers Association, sent a formal letter to the US Senate requesting that explicit limits be placed on yielding stablecoins.
According to bankers, the GENIUS law, passed over the summer, leaves room for crypto companies to offer economic incentives to stablecoin holders, which in practice could resemble paying interest without being subject to the same rules as banks.
The central argument of community banks is that deposits are not a simple liability, but the basis of local credit. When money flows into reward stablecoins, they warn, it reduces banks' ability to lend to small businesses, students, farmers and homebuyers in regional economies. In its letter, the council was explicit in pointing out that a massive capital flight could directly harm entire communities.
The concern is not new. Over the past year, banking associations have consistently pushed for stablecoins to not be able to offer any type of yield, arguing that this would make them a direct alternative to savings accounts, but without the regulatory obligations that banks face. In an email addressed to CEOs in the sector, ABA President Rob Nichols warned that this “loophole” could divert trillions of dollars out of the traditional banking system if it is not corrected in time.
On the other side of the debate, the crypto industry rejects that narrative. In a letter sent last month to lawmakers, the Blockchain Association argued that banning rewards associated with stablecoins would harm competition, weaken payments innovation, and reopen a legal framework that they said was already resolved. The association maintains that there is no evidence that the adoption of stablecoins has caused disproportionate outflows of bank deposits.
Also, an uncomfortable point for banking: a large part of the deposits that banks retain today are not transformed into productive loans, but remain parked as interest-bearing reserves at the Federal Reserve. From that perspective, the problem would not be crypto competition, but rather the inefficient use of capital within the banking system itself.

Topic Opinion:
When community banks talk about deposits at risk, they are not exaggerating: programmable, liquid, yielding money represents a structural threat to a model based on slow intermediation and regulated margins. However, trying to close this progress through bans could end up protecting inefficiencies more than communities.
💬 Are yield stablecoins a real threat to local banking?

Leave your comment...
#Stablecoins #CryptoRegulationBattle #defi #UnitedStates #CryptoNews $USDC

This week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is witnessing a pivotal moment with the departure of Caroline Krenshaw, the only Democratic voice within the agency, after more than five years of work and influence.
This is not just a departure from a position…
Rather, it is a shift in the balance of decision ⚖️

What does Krenshaw's departure mean?
• She was one of the harshest critics of the authority's approach to cryptocurrencies

Over the past few years, the world of digital currencies has remained outside of full monitoring.
Today, this scene is changing radically.
😶‍🌫️CARF – Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework
It is an international regulatory framework launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and its aim is not to ban crypto... but to regulate the flow of information about it.
Simply:
Governments want to understand the full picture.

#USCryptoStakingTaxReview
The financial review of betting in the United States has reopened a discussion that many avoid: the issue is not the amount paid, but how income is classified on the series. The market is not afraid of taxes; it is afraid of the definition.

📌 The common mistake in discussion

It has not been discussed whether the bet generates income.