The post The GENIUS Act Is Already Law. Banks Shouldn’t Try to Rewrite It Now appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Healthy competition drives innovation and better products for consumers; it is at the center of American economic leadership. Unfortunately, now that the bipartisan GENIUS Act has been signed into law, major legacy financial institutions seem to be having second thoughts about the innovations that stablecoins can bring to financial markets. Bank lobbying groups and public affairs teams have been peppering Congress with complaints about the law, urging members to reopen debate and introduce changes to the legislation that will ensure the stablecoin market doesn’t grow too quickly, protecting banks’ profits and stifling consumer choice. This reactionary response is both overblown and unnecessary. What legacy financial firms should do instead is embrace competition and offer exciting new products and services that consumers want, not try to kneecap emerging players through anti-innovation rules and regulations. The GENIUS Act was carefully designed with a thorough bipartisan process to strengthen consumer safeguards, ensure regulatory oversight, and preserve financial stability. Efforts to roll back its provisions are less about protecting families and more about protecting entrenched banking interests from the competition that helps ensure the U.S. banking system stays the strongest and most innovative in the world. Critics warn that allowing stablecoins to provide rewards could lead to massive deposit outflows from community banks, with figures as high as $6.6 trillion cited. But closer examination shows this fear is unfounded. A July 2025 analysis by consulting firm Charles River Associates found no statistically significant relationship between stablecoin adoption and community bank deposit outflows. In fact, the overwhelming majority of stablecoin reserves remain in the traditional financial system — either in commercial bank accounts or in short-term Treasuries — where they continue to support liquidity and credit in the broader U.S. economy. The dire estimates rely on unrealistic assumptions that every dollar of stablecoin issuance permanently… The post The GENIUS Act Is Already Law. Banks Shouldn’t Try to Rewrite It Now appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Healthy competition drives innovation and better products for consumers; it is at the center of American economic leadership. Unfortunately, now that the bipartisan GENIUS Act has been signed into law, major legacy financial institutions seem to be having second thoughts about the innovations that stablecoins can bring to financial markets. Bank lobbying groups and public affairs teams have been peppering Congress with complaints about the law, urging members to reopen debate and introduce changes to the legislation that will ensure the stablecoin market doesn’t grow too quickly, protecting banks’ profits and stifling consumer choice. This reactionary response is both overblown and unnecessary. What legacy financial firms should do instead is embrace competition and offer exciting new products and services that consumers want, not try to kneecap emerging players through anti-innovation rules and regulations. The GENIUS Act was carefully designed with a thorough bipartisan process to strengthen consumer safeguards, ensure regulatory oversight, and preserve financial stability. Efforts to roll back its provisions are less about protecting families and more about protecting entrenched banking interests from the competition that helps ensure the U.S. banking system stays the strongest and most innovative in the world. Critics warn that allowing stablecoins to provide rewards could lead to massive deposit outflows from community banks, with figures as high as $6.6 trillion cited. But closer examination shows this fear is unfounded. A July 2025 analysis by consulting firm Charles River Associates found no statistically significant relationship between stablecoin adoption and community bank deposit outflows. In fact, the overwhelming majority of stablecoin reserves remain in the traditional financial system — either in commercial bank accounts or in short-term Treasuries — where they continue to support liquidity and credit in the broader U.S. economy. The dire estimates rely on unrealistic assumptions that every dollar of stablecoin issuance permanently…

The GENIUS Act Is Already Law. Banks Shouldn’t Try to Rewrite It Now

Healthy competition drives innovation and better products for consumers; it is at the center of American economic leadership. Unfortunately, now that the bipartisan GENIUS Act has been signed into law, major legacy financial institutions seem to be having second thoughts about the innovations that stablecoins can bring to financial markets. Bank lobbying groups and public affairs teams have been peppering Congress with complaints about the law, urging members to reopen debate and introduce changes to the legislation that will ensure the stablecoin market doesn’t grow too quickly, protecting banks’ profits and stifling consumer choice.

This reactionary response is both overblown and unnecessary. What legacy financial firms should do instead is embrace competition and offer exciting new products and services that consumers want, not try to kneecap emerging players through anti-innovation rules and regulations.

The GENIUS Act was carefully designed with a thorough bipartisan process to strengthen consumer safeguards, ensure regulatory oversight, and preserve financial stability. Efforts to roll back its provisions are less about protecting families and more about protecting entrenched banking interests from the competition that helps ensure the U.S. banking system stays the strongest and most innovative in the world.

Critics warn that allowing stablecoins to provide rewards could lead to massive deposit outflows from community banks, with figures as high as $6.6 trillion cited. But closer examination shows this fear is unfounded. A July 2025 analysis by consulting firm Charles River Associates found no statistically significant relationship between stablecoin adoption and community bank deposit outflows. In fact, the overwhelming majority of stablecoin reserves remain in the traditional financial system — either in commercial bank accounts or in short-term Treasuries — where they continue to support liquidity and credit in the broader U.S. economy. The dire estimates rely on unrealistic assumptions that every dollar of stablecoin issuance permanently leaves the banking system.

Stablecoins are not siphoning resources away from lending. If anything, their growth may increase inflows to the U.S. money supply over time, according to a Treasury Department report. That means Americans can benefit from modern, programmable digital dollars without threatening the availability of credit in their communities.

Others have urged the repeal of Section 16(d) of the GENIUS Act, which allows subsidiaries of state-chartered institutions to effect stablecoin business across state lines without needing additional licenses. If this important part of GENIUS is repealed, the result would be a fragmented, Balkanized and ineffective regulatory regime that stifles interstate commerce.

Innovation has always been the lifeblood of American capitalism — it’s what separates dynamic market economies from stagnant, protected ones. Rather than trying to box out new market entrants, banks should be working to ensure their current and future customers have access to cutting-edge products and services, including healthier interest rates on deposit accounts.

While the Federal Reserve’s target rate today is above 4%, the average checking account yields just 0.07% and savings accounts 0.39%. That gap doesn’t reflect consumer protection; it reflects value captured by banks. Stablecoin rewards programs, by contrast, allow platforms to compete head-to-head for customers in ways that force incumbents to offer better value. Consumers win when competition exists.

The GENIUS Act positions the U.S. as the global leader in digital finance while maintaining the strongest consumer protections. Congress already debated and settled these issues through careful bipartisan deliberation. The law requires one-to-one reserves in cash or Treasuries, robust licensing and supervision, and transparency far beyond what is expected of traditional deposits. Relitigating these questions now would undermine that consensus and threaten to slow America’s leadership in digital finance.

Stablecoins do not represent a loophole, they represent an innovation that preserves the stability of the banking system while giving consumers the benefit of competition. Policymakers should see through this fear campaign and stand by the balanced, bipartisan framework Congress already enacted.

Innovation and competition built American financial leadership. It’s time to let it work again — and not allow incumbent interests to stifle its promising growth. American consumers deserve nothing less.

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/opinion/2025/09/16/the-genius-act-is-already-law-banks-shouldn-t-try-to-rewrite-it-now

Market Opportunity
Threshold Logo
Threshold Price(T)
$0.007146
$0.007146$0.007146
+1.03%
USD
Threshold (T) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — HitPaw, a leader in AI-powered visual enhancement solutions, announced Comfy, a global content creation platform, is
Share
AI Journal2026/02/08 09:15
Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

A Journalist gave a brutal review of the new Melania documentary, which has been criticized by those who say it won't make back the huge fees spent to make it,
Share
Rawstory2026/02/08 09:08
Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00