The American Bankers Association and major U.S. banks have mounted a coordinated policy offensive in 2026 to restrict yield-bearing stablecoins and to reshape open banking rules, arguing both threaten deposit funding and consumer safety.
Bank leaders warn the stakes are large: Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan has flagged potential deposit outflows as high as $6 trillion if yield-bearing stablecoins proliferate unchecked, a claim that has driven the ABA’s legislative priorities and sharpened industry debate as of Jan. 22.
Banks contend that stablecoins that offer returns—often backed by short-term Treasury yields—functionally compete with deposit accounts and could drain funding used for lending. The ABA frames yield-bearing tokens as effectively unregulated high-yield deposits and is pushing Congress to insert explicit language that would prohibit yield payments from stablecoin issuers, exchanges and intermediaries.
That demand formed part of the ABA’s 2026 policy priorities and has already influenced negotiation dynamics around competing bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
Crypto firms argue that yield on stablecoins reflects market innovation and consumer choice; Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire has publicly disputed the premise that such yields threaten banks. The fight over yield clauses also contributed to the delay of a Senate Banking Committee markup after Coinbase withdrew support for a draft bill, underscoring the legislative friction.
Parallel to the yield campaign, banks are seeking revisions to Section 1033 and other open-banking frameworks to clarify liability and set prescriptive data-access standards. The ABA’s proposals emphasize clearer rules on who bears responsibility for breaches, fraud or misuse when third parties access consumer financial data, and they call for stronger security and consent mechanisms for API access.
Why banks want to curb stablecoin yields
Fintech and crypto advocates warn those changes could enable banks to impose fees or gatekeeping policies that restrict third-party access and dampen competition. Critics say stricter liability rules and prescriptive access standards would shift the balance toward incumbents and raise costs for new wallet and fintech services.
Regulatory developments have strengthened the banking sector’s strategic posture. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published Interpretive Letter 1188 on Dec. 9, confirming that national banks may operate as ‘riskless principal’ in crypto-asset transactions. That guidance allows banks to intermediate trades without taking principal position or holding volatile assets, creating a revenue path from crypto services while avoiding direct market risk.
That regulatory clarity complements the ABA’s lobbying: banks can argue for stricter limits on competitive threats such as yield-bearing stablecoins while expanding their own, de‑risked crypto activities under supervisory cover.
For market participants, the immediate consequence is a policy tug-of-war that will shape who profits from digital-asset flows and how consumers access financial data. Lawmakers and regulators now face a choice: constrain yield-bearing stablecoins and tighten open-banking rules as the ABA requests, or preserve broader access and product innovation advocated by crypto and fintech groups.
Investors and fintech services are watching forthcoming legislative decisions and committee actions closely, as those outcomes will determine whether digital-asset activity remains inside a bank‑centred perimeter or evolves with wider third‑party participation.
