Moody's: Stablecoins pose no immediate threat to the banking industry, but the $300 billion market cap and the CLARITY Act controversy serve as a wake-up call

📄Full Article· Automatically extracted by trafilaturaGemini 翻譯1693 words

Moody’s analyst Abhi Srivastava stated that the impact of stablecoins on the banking industry remains limited for now—U.S. regulations prohibiting interest payments make it difficult for them to replace traditional deposits on a large scale; however, the rapid expansion of a $300 billion market cap and tokenized RWA has forced banks to confront long-term competitive pressures. Meanwhile, whether to allow interest-bearing stablecoins is the core controversy stalling the CLARITY Act in Congress. (Previous coverage: Official Regulation of Crypto and Stablecoins! UK Financial Services and Markets Act Signed into Law) (Background: Major News! Fed Chair: Stablecoins Viewed as a Form of Money; No Plans for Retail CBDC) Moody’s has provided an assessment that gives the banking industry a temporary sigh of relief: stablecoins do not pose a systemic threat to the traditional financial system in the short term—but the word "temporary" hides many underlying implications. Abhi Srivastava, Vice President of the Digital Finance Group at Moody’s Investors Service, pointed out to CoinTelegraph that the actual scale of stablecoin usage remains limited, despite their market cap surpassing $300 billion late last year. In an interview, he stated bluntly: "For the banking industry, the disruptive risk at this stage appears limited. In the short term, U.S. regulations prohibiting stablecoins from paying interest mean they are unlikely to replace traditional deposits on a large scale domestically." He further added that existing U.S. payment infrastructure has reached a standard of being "fast, low-cost, and reliable," which limits the substitution advantage of stablecoins in the domestic payment market. In other words, the regulatory framework itself is the thickest firewall against stablecoin penetration into the banking system. Srivastava observed that the areas where stablecoins are truly gaining traction are those where U.S. regulation is relatively difficult to reach: cross-border commerce, on-chain financial applications, and payment scenarios in emerging markets. In these areas, traditional banking infrastructure is weak and inefficient, which has provided space for stablecoins to enter. He noted that as the stablecoin market cap continues to expand, coupled with the proliferation of tokenized Real World Assets (RWA), the banking industry will face increasingly fierce competition—in the long run, this could lead to a chain reaction of deposit outflows, thereby compressing banks' lending capacity. This is not alarmism, but a natural extension of structural trends. The core battlefield for stablecoin regulation is currently playing out in the U.S. Congress. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act) is the most high-profile comprehensive crypto regulatory framework to date, covering three pillars: asset classification, regulatory jurisdiction, and market oversight—yet the bill remains stalled in Congress and has failed to advance. One of the main stumbling blocks is the "prohibition on interest-bearing stablecoins" clause. Crypto firms led by Coinbase have publicly opposed early drafts, citing reasons including a lack of legal protection for open-source software developers and the argument that an interest-bearing ban would hinder industry innovation. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis indicated earlier this month that he plans to introduce a revised draft, but according to Politico, the new version has also faced opposition and has not yet been released. Industry executives and analysts generally warn that if the CLARITY Act fails to pass, the crypto industry may face the risk of hostile regulators taking more severe actions in the future—legislative vacuums are often breeding grounds for regulatory crackdowns. It is worth noting that the argument supporting the interest-bearing ban does not hold up well in terms of data. A quantitative assessment by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) shows that banning stablecoin interest would only increase U.S. bank lending by approximately $2.1 billion, accounting for 0.02% of total lending—a figure that is almost negligible. However, estimates from Standard Chartered analysts point in another direction: if the interest-bearing clause is ultimately passed, up to $500 billion in funds could shift from traditional bank deposits to stablecoin products by 2028. The gap between these two sets of figures reflects the tug-of-war between various interests in the regulatory game—the fears of the banking industry may not be proportional to the actual risks. The bill still needs to clear at least five hurdles: Senate Banking Committee markup, the 60-vote threshold on the floor, reconciliation with the Agriculture Committee version, integration with the House version from July 2025, and finally, the President's signature. Each step is a variable. Moody’s assessment provides a relatively neutral conclusion: there is no need to panic now, but do not let your guard down. Srivastava’s core argument is that the regulatory framework remains the biggest constraint on stablecoin expansion—once the framework loosens, the competitive landscape could change rapidly.

Data Status✓ Full text extractedRead Original (動區 BlockTempo)

🔍Historical Similar Events· Keyword + Asset Matching6 items

2026-04-20

US Clarity Act may be delayed until May! Banking industry dissatisfied with "stablecoin yields," Kelp DAO hit by $290 million hack

Similarity 170%關鍵字 clarity/act同分類 zh

2026-03-18

SEC and CFTC guidance may render the Clarity Act ineffective

Similarity 140%關鍵字 clarity/act同分類 zh

2026-04-23

CLARITY Act Gains New Urgency as More Than 100 Crypto Organizations Urge Senate Action

Similarity 130%關鍵字 clarity/act

2026-04-23