HASHJ cloud mining opens new frontier with support for BTC, ETH, DOGE, XRP, SOL, USDT

What happened in the past 24 hours? Take a look at the picture review of "Ai&Meme Daily"! ?6/19 Update: The Palestinian-Israeli conflict escalated, the market collectively pulled back, and the

Key Takeaways: U.S. banking associations want Congress to close an interest-payment loophole in the GENIUS Act for stablecoin affiliates. The debate could expand into a broader discussion on the role of U.S. stablecoins in international payment systems. Future political shifts may influence whether current restrictions are tightened, relaxed, or adapted to global regulatory norms. Major U.S. banking trade groups are calling for Congress to block stablecoin issuers and affiliated firms from paying interest to token holders, warning that the practice could drain deposits from banks and reduce lending to households and businesses. In digital asset market structure legislation, it is important that the requirements in the GENIUS Act prohibiting the payment of interest and yield on stablecoins are not evaded. The latest from BPI, @ABABankers , @ConsumerBankers , @FSForum and @ICBA : https://t.co/YOta4d4UDA — Bank Policy Institute (@bankpolicy) August 12, 2025 In a joint statement published recently, organizations including the American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum, and Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) said current provisions under the GENIUS Act leave a gap that allows exchanges and related entities to offer yield on payment stablecoins, despite a statutory ban on issuers doing so. GENIUS Act Under the Magnifying Glass The groups argued that without an explicit prohibition covering distribution partners, the intent of the law will be undermined. They pointed to Treasury Department estimates that stablecoins capable of offering interest could result in up to $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows, intensifying funding pressures for banks and money market funds. The statement emphasized that bank deposits remain a key source of loan funding, while money market funds operate under securities regulations that permit them to offer yield. Payment stablecoins, the groups noted, are not structured to fund loans and do not face the same supervisory oversight. “Incentivizing a shift from bank deposits and money market funds to stablecoins would end up increasing lending costs and reducing loans to businesses and consumer households,” the statement said. Under the GENIUS Act, payment stablecoin issuers are prohibited from offering interest, yield, or other financial rewards. The banking associations said exchanges and affiliates acting as distribution channels can still provide such incentives under current language, creating a pathway for indirect interest payments that sidestep the restriction. Stablecoins, the Trump Administration, and Political Shifts They warned that joint marketing arrangements between issuers and exchanges could accelerate deposit outflows during periods of financial stress, reducing credit supply and raising borrowing costs for Main Street borrowers. The letter urged lawmakers to extend the prohibition to all entities facilitating stablecoin transactions, including affiliated platforms and intermediaries, to preserve the stability of traditional funding sources. Looking ahead, the debate over the GENIUS Act could intersect with political shifts, especially if a Trump administration revisits federal priorities on digital asset oversight. Any future policy recalibration could influence how aggressively agencies enforce or revise restrictions on stablecoin activity, including interest-related provisions. Industry participants are also watching whether international developments will affect U.S. positions. If other major jurisdictions permit yield-bearing stablecoins under regulated frameworks, pressure could mount on Congress and regulators to balance domestic credit stability concerns with the competitive positioning of U.S.-issued stablecoins in cross-border markets. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) How might closing the stablecoin interest loophole affect global payments? Tighter rules could limit the appeal of U.S.-issued stablecoins abroad, especially in markets where regulated yield-bearing tokens are permitted. What role do payment stablecoins play in cross-border trade? They can facilitate near-instant settlement in multiple currencies, offering an alternative to traditional correspondent banking systems in international commerce. What other industries could be impacted by changes to stablecoin regulation? E-commerce platforms, remittance providers, and decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols could all be affected depending on how payment token rules evolve.

Crypto advocacy initiative the DeFi Education Fund and Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) are encouraging the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop a “safe harbor” for apps pertaining to the blockchain sector, according to an August 13 blog post published on the a16z website. SEC Asked to Create Blockchain Safe Harbor Both the DeFi Education Fund and a16z submitted proposals to the SEC on August 12 in a bid to persuade the federal regulator to create a “safe harbor” for blockchain-powered apps. We were thrilled to partner with @a16zcrypto in this safe harbor submission to the SEC. To learn more about our submission, check out our blog post in the reply 🫡 https://t.co/VObzHJoUBR pic.twitter.com/cYBEa4Z0Uq — DeFi Education Fund (@fund_defi) August 13, 2025 “The SEC has previously taken the position—through enforcement actions and Wells notices—that developers of apps could be deemed brokers if they enabled users to transact in securities,” the blog post reads. As a solution, the two entities posit that the SEC provides a “rebuttable presumption” that software interfaces used for peer-to-peer transactions would not be engaged in “broker-dealer activity.” “Concerns about the SEC’s prior approach aren’t just about inconvenient regulatory burdens,” the blog post states. “Requiring broker registration for neutral apps would force software developers to take on roles and responsibilities they never assumed—acting as gatekeepers, taking custody, and intermediating activity—all of which undermine the benefits of blockchain systems and create new risks for users,” the blog post continues. Will the SEC Go Through With the Crypto-Focused Proposal? News of a16z and the DeFi Education Fund’s submitted proposals comes just months after a16z urged SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce to construct a “digital collectible” safe harbor at the federal regulator . “The Commission should create a safe harbor (either through a Commission-level policy statement, by providing Commission-level guidance, or by adopting formal rules) that provides objective conditions under which ordinary transactions of collectible tokens are excluded from securities laws,” a16z’s March letter to Peirce states. Taken together, the proposals reflect a continuing push by industry advocates to persuade the SEC to carve out regulatory space that shields blockchain developers from unintended legal obligations while preserving the technology’s core benefits.