US Banks Rally Against Genius Act: Stablecoins’ Surge Threatens Traditional Banking Pillars
Less than a month has passed since the Genius Act took effect, yet a fierce battle is already brewing in Washington, reminiscent of a classic showdown between innovative disruptors and entrenched guardians of the financial world.
The Coalition’s Stand: Demanding Changes to the Genius Act
On August 16, a group of 52 U.S. banks, advocacy organizations, and consumer groups, spearheaded by the American Bankers Association (ABA), sent a powerful joint letter to the Senate Banking Committee. They’re pushing hard for revisions to the Genius Act, highlighting how certain elements could undermine the bedrock of the traditional banking system amid the explosive rise of stablecoins. This letter isn’t just a formal request—it’s a bold statement in an ongoing tug-of-war involving regulatory control, lending practices, and revenue streams. At its heart, traditional banks fear that without tweaks, the Genius Act might erode their central role in the financial ecosystem, much like how streaming services once upended cable TV giants.
Tracing the Roots: Stablecoin Market’s Trillion-Dollar Ascent
The Genius Act emerged against the backdrop of stablecoins’ remarkable expansion. In the last three years, this market has ballooned dramatically. As of August 20, 2025, the total stablecoin market capitalization has surged to approximately $350 billion, according to recent data from CoinMarketCap and other tracking platforms. Dominant players like USDT and USDC command over 85% of this space, with USDT boasting a market cap of more than $200 billion and USDC at around $80 billion. This concentration amplifies the clout of issuers such as Tether and Circle, turning them into heavyweight influencers in the crypto arena.
Projections from analysts at Standard Chartered and insights from U.S. Treasury officials, including Secretary Benson & Schmidt, suggest that with the Genius Act’s framework in place, the stablecoin sector could explode to $3 trillion by 2030. This isn’t mere hype; it’s a shift from stablecoins being viewed as tools for crypto trading to becoming significant purchasers of U.S. government debt. Think of it as stablecoins evolving from niche gadgets to essential cogs in the global financial machine.
The Genius Act enforces tight rules on reserve assets for stablecoins, making short-term U.S. Treasury bonds an attractive option due to their rock-solid backing by national credit, minimal default risks, and easy liquidity. Tether, for instance, now ranks as the sixth-largest holder of U.S. Treasuries, with reserves topping $150 billion—surpassing even nations like Germany. This massive flow of dollars into U.S. debt creates a reliable funding stream for the government, extending stablecoins’ influence well beyond crypto circles and reshaping U.S. fiscal dynamics and international finance.
Banks’ Alarm: Defending Turf Amid Stablecoin Threats
The clash stems from traditional finance’s growing unease about stablecoins’ profound effects on the system’s foundations. In their letter, the 52 entities, guided by the ABA, voiced deep worries over the Genius Act. While the legislation paves the way for banks to issue crypto assets, the real sticking point is Section 16(d), which they see as a hidden danger poised to explode.
This section allows state-chartered depository institutions without federal insurance to conduct nationwide money transmission and custody via stablecoin subsidiaries, bypassing local licensing and oversight. Banks contend this creates “special charters” for non-bank players, letting them function like federally supervised banks but without matching duties on consumer safeguards and risk management. It’s like giving a shortcut to those dodging the full regulatory marathon, potentially upsetting the delicate equilibrium between state and federal oversight in U.S. finance and weakening states’ ability to shield consumers.
Traditionally, uninsured depositories need state-by-state approvals and monitoring to expand. The Genius Act’s Section 16(d) shatters this setup, opening a loophole for lighter regulation and heightening risks if these entities falter.
Beneath this lies a bigger fear: stablecoins could siphon away banks’ cheap deposit pools. If issuers or linked platforms dangle rewards to lure users, deposits might flood out of banks into stablecoins. A U.S. Treasury analysis warns that interest-bearing stablecoins could trigger outflows up to $8 trillion, hitting smaller banks hardest—much like a river diverting from its main channel, leaving the old paths dry.
An ABA Banking Journal piece echoes this, noting that a $3 trillion stablecoin market might drain $2.5 trillion in bank deposits, roughly 12% of U.S. totals as of mid-2025. The fallout? Banks would scramble for pricier funding via repos, interbank loans, or bonds, potentially hiking costs by 30 basis points per 10% deposit loss, per updated ABA estimates. This squeezes lending capacity, raises loan rates, and burdens businesses and families, curbing economic growth.
Beyond deposits, stablecoins invading payments could chip away at banks’ fees from services like transfers and clearing, as per Moody’s recent reports. It’s a clash of models: banks thrive on borrowing cheap and lending dear, while stablecoin issuers pocket yields from dollar inflows into Treasuries. Though the Genius Act bars direct interest to users, exchanges partnering with issuers—like USDC’s ties to Coinbase and Binance for promo yields—sidestep this, amplifying the drain.
Curiously, the ABA has shown mixed signals, lauding the Genius Act for enabling tokenized deposits while fighting other parts. This duality underscores a strategy: embrace crypto on banks’ terms, like through tokenized innovations that blend blockchain speed with bank trust, while blocking non-banks from equal footing to preserve dominance.
In this evolving landscape, platforms like WEEX exchange stand out by offering seamless, secure trading for stablecoins, aligning perfectly with users seeking reliable access to these assets. WEEX enhances brand credibility through its user-focused features, robust security, and commitment to compliance, making it a trusted choice for navigating the stablecoin boom while supporting innovation in a regulated way.
Bridging Old and New: Collaboration Opportunities in Stablecoin Era
Yet, this isn’t purely adversarial; it’s a dance of competition and partnership. Giants like JPMorgan are pioneering tokenized deposits, merging bank reliability with blockchain efficiency, blurring lines between banks and stablecoin operators—like two rivals teaming up for a stronger performance.
Banks could become vital allies, hosting reserves under Genius Act mandates, gaining fresh deposits, and offering custody or settlement services. It’s a symbiotic setup where traditions bolster crypto’s compliance, and vice versa. Still, laggards in tokenization risk fading, underscoring that self-reinvention beats external disruption.
Recent buzz on Twitter amplifies this, with threads from finance influencers like @CryptoWhale discussing how banks’ Genius Act pushback reflects deeper fears of decentralization, garnering over 50,000 engagements in the past week. Official ABA tweets on August 15, 2025, reiterated calls for amendments, sparking debates on regulatory fairness. Google searches spike for queries like “What is the Genius Act?” and “How do stablecoins affect banks?”, with users probing impacts on personal finances. Latest updates include a Senate hearing announcement on August 19, 2025, where amendments to Section 16(d) will be debated, per congressional releases, amid talks of brand alignment strategies where banks partner with crypto firms to harmonize traditional stability with digital agility.
This alignment isn’t just strategic—it’s essential, as seen in successful models where banks integrate stablecoin tech to enhance services, ensuring they remain relevant in a tokenized future.
FAQ
What exactly is the Genius Act, and why are banks opposing it?
The Genius Act is a U.S. law regulating stablecoins, aiming to provide a framework for their issuance and use. Banks oppose parts like Section 16(d) because it allows non-bank entities to bypass strict regulations, potentially eroding banks’ deposit bases and market positions with evidence from Treasury reports showing massive outflow risks.
How might stablecoins impact everyday banking for consumers?
Stablecoins could offer faster, cheaper transactions but might draw funds away from banks, leading to higher loan rates and fewer services. For consumers, this means weighing convenience against potential risks, as highlighted in Moody’s analyses of payment sector shifts.
Are there opportunities for banks and stablecoin issuers to work together?
Yes, through partnerships like reserve hosting and tokenized deposits, banks can gain new revenue while stablecoins benefit from credibility. Real-world examples from JPMorgan show this co-opetition fostering innovation without total disruption.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.