Washington is finally moving on crypto regulation… and markets are already reacting.
Last week, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act came into the spotlight—billed as the long-awaited framework to bring order, transparency, and legitimacy to crypto markets.
But almost immediately, some of the biggest names in crypto pushed back hard.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly criticized the bill, warning that parts of it would do more harm than good.
This might look like another messy crypto regulation debate… But under the surface, it’s something much bigger.
This fight isn’t about fraud or consumer protection… It’s about banks losing control.
What the Clarity Act says—and why it’s controversial
The Clarity Act is designed to create a formal market structure for digital assets. In theory, it would:
- Define which assets fall under securities vs. commodities rules
- Clarify oversight between regulators
- Give companies a framework to operate without fear of retroactive enforcement
The problem is what’s inside the fine print.
In its current form, the bill includes provisions that would restrict how stablecoins can offer rewards or interest, even though those stablecoins are typically backed by short-term U.S. Treasuries that generate real yield.
In other words, stablecoin issuers would be limited in their ability to pass yield through to users.
Why that matters to banks
The modern banking model is simple: Banks pay next to nothing on checking and savings accounts… lend that same money at much higher rates… and profit off the difference (net interest income).
The whole system works only because most people leave their money parked, don’t shop around, and accept earning next to nothing on their cash.
Stablecoins threaten that system.
You see, stablecoins aren’t speculative tokens. At their core, they’re digital dollars backed by highly liquid assets like U.S. Treasuries—assets that currently pay meaningful yield.
Right now, most stablecoin issuers keep that yield for themselves. Users get price stability, but not interest.
But once stablecoins are allowed to pass that yield through to users, they stop being a niche crypto tool and become a direct competitor to bank deposits.
At that point, consumers will start wondering, “Why is my money earning 4–5% here… and almost nothing at my bank?”
This fear isn’t hypothetical.
According to a U.S. Treasury analysis cited by major banks—including during recent Bank of America conference calls—as much as $6 trillion in deposits could leave the banking system if stablecoins are allowed to compete freely on yield.
For context, total U.S. bank deposits are roughly $17–18 trillion. That means up to a third of that cash could migrate elsewhere.
Even a fraction of that would pressure bank profits, reduce lending capacity, and force banks to compete for deposits.
The takeaway for investors
This debate isn’t about picking sides between banking and crypto. It’s about following the money.
The back-and-forth over the Clarity Act represents a structural fight over where cash lives, who earns yield, and who controls the system.
And when banks are this aggressive in defending deposits, it’s a sign they’re feeling real pressure.
We’ll continue to follow this story as it develops and share insights on how to play it, so make sure to stay tuned on Wall Street Unplugged Premium.
