logo
Crypto groups accuse banks of attempting to ‘relitigate' stablecoin law

Crypto groups accuse banks of attempting to ‘relitigate' stablecoin law

The Hill4 hours ago
Two prominent crypto groups are accusing banks of attempting to 'relitigate' issues within the stablecoin bill that President Trump signed into law last month.
The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and Blockchain Association argued in a letter to leaders of the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that they should reject the push by banks to tweak language in the GENIUS Act on rewards payments, state powers and limits on nonbank stablecoin issuers.
'As you are aware, these matters were the subject of extensive debate, negotiation, and compromise during the legislative process,' CCI CEO Ji Hun Kim and Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger wrote.
'The Letters unfortunately seek to create an uncompetitive payment stablecoin environment, protecting banks at the expense of broader industry growth, competition, and consumer choice, which form the bedrock of America's vibrant financial and innovation landscape,' they continued.
The American Bankers Association and its counterparts in the states called on senators last week to extend a provision barring interest payments on stablecoins to cover other digital asset actors.
They suggested this provision can be 'easily bypassed' when crypto exchanges or affiliates offer rewards to stablecoin holders.
The Bank Policy Institute (BPI) similarly urged lawmakers to close the 'interest loophole' last week, arguing that stablecoins cannot act as substitutes for bank deposits, money market funds or investment products.
'These distinctions are why payment stablecoins should not pay interest the way highly regulated and supervised banks do on deposits or offer yield as money market funds do,' BPI wrote.
They pointed to a Treasury Department report from earlier this year that indicated stablecoins could result in $6.6 trillion in deposit outflows from banks.
The crypto groups pushed back on these arguments, citing a recent analysis that found stablecoin adoption had no significant impact on deposit outflows. They also argued the ability to offer rewards creates a more 'level playing field' for the industry to compete with banks.
The two sides are also warring over GENIUS Act provisions impacting state decisions and restrictions on nonbanks' abilities to offer stablecoins.
The banking industry is arguing to repeal a section of the law that restricts the authority of states to bar uninsured out-of-state institutions from operating across state lines.
The crypto industry contends this is a 'necessary safeguard to protect stablecoin holders' by allowing them to redeem the digital tokens from holders in other states and without which the system would become a 'fragmented, balkanized regulatory regime.'
Another point of contention is the GENIUS Act's existing limits on which nonbank financial institutions can issue stablecoins. The law currently bars public nonbank companies from getting in on the action but still allows private firms to do so.
Banks argue this is another 'loophole' that threatens to upend the separation between banking and commerce, while the crypto groups suggest the law 'strikes the right balance.'
The push to amend the GENIUS Act comes as lawmakers gear up to consider broader crypto market structure legislation in the fall when they return from their August recess.
In July, the House passed its version of the market structure bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which included amendments to the stablecoin law. However, the Senate appears poised to drive ahead with its own legislation after Republican lawmakers released a discussion draft last month.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American

When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword

Democrats press DHS for ‘Alligator Alcatraz' information
Democrats press DHS for ‘Alligator Alcatraz' information

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Democrats press DHS for ‘Alligator Alcatraz' information

Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for more information about how the Trump administration teamed up with the state of Florida to create a controversial detention facility for migrants in the middle of the Everglades. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' House and Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem dated Wednesday. The detention facility, dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' opened in early July to house arrested migrants awaiting deportation. It was created through a state and federal partnership, with Florida officials leading oversight and construction, with DHS footing the bill. President Trump toured the facility when it opened, along with Noem. A federal judge last week temporarily halted expansion of the site after tribal and environmental groups filed a lawsuit over potential damage to wetlands. Located just south of Miami, Alligator Alcatraz quickly raised alarms about conditions for detainees in the hot, humid climate. Some whistleblowers have described worm-infested food, plumbing problems and other issues since its opening. 'The Everglades site was selected precisely because of its remote location and harsh surroundings, which Florida officials reportedly view as 'an ideal location to house and transport migrants,'' the Democrats wrote in their letter Wednesday. 'We ask that DHS promptly provide critical information for the American public to better understand this detention plan.' The letter was signed by more than five dozen members of Congress, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). It requested that DHS respond to several questions by September 3.

‘South Park' mocks Trump's DC takeover in upcoming episode
‘South Park' mocks Trump's DC takeover in upcoming episode

The Hill

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hill

‘South Park' mocks Trump's DC takeover in upcoming episode

An upcoming episode of 'South Park' is set to make fun of President Trump's efforts to crack down on crime in Washington, D.C. A teaser for the Wednesday evening episode, released on social media and YouTube, shows the iconic character 'Towlie' arriving in Washington, D.C. As 'Towlie' gets off a bus arriving in the district, a tank rolls by in front of the White House while the character says, 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel.' Trump has sparked widespread backlash with his takeover of the local police force and mobilization of National Guard troops to help fight crime in D.C. 'South Park' has used the first several episodes of its new season to mock Trump and his allies, poking fun at the administration's deportation efforts as well as controversy relating to the Jeffery Epstein files. The show has targeted media conglomerate Paramount, the parent company of Comedy Central which earlier this year awarded the show's creators a new lucrative contract for rights to broadcast the animated satire program.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store