The debate in the United States over a stable currency gain did not end with the landing of the GENIUS Act. According to foreign media, the recent move by the banking lobby to tighten the relevant representation in Congress and the opposition to encryption platforms providing stable currency holders with near-interest on deposits has affected the advancement of the Senate Clarity Act.

Controversy focused on diversion deposits.

The central view of the banking sector is that, if a stable currency platform can provide higher returns to users, some of the funds may shift from low-interest deposits to stable currencies, thus reducing the ability of banks to absorb deposits and lend. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Damon had also publicly stated that the regulatory requirements for banking and currency stabilization were not equivalent.

It was mentioned that the banking side would like Congress to be more explicit not only in prohibiting stable money issuers from paying their revenues directly to the holder, but also in blocking the space for indirect returns through trading platforms, distribution fee arrangements, etc.

GENIUS is in effect, Clarity is still pulling.

The GENIUS Act passed last year has created federal rules for US stabilization currency issuance. Under existing law, the issuer of a stable currency may not provide the benefit directly to the holder, but the provision is not entirely dead as to whether a user-oriented platform, such as an exchange, can design an incentive mechanism.

As a result, the banking sector would like to use the Clarity Act to further tighten language. According to the article, although the two parties had previously promoted the compromise version, the banking industry had again pushed the issue of the revenue from the stabilization currency to the forefront this month, which was one of the reasons for the re-emergence of the bill. The current GENIUS framework will be maintained if the bill does not receive the required support from the Senate by mid-September.

The low interest rate at the bank became the point of response.

The encryption industry countered that there was no realistic basis for the bank's assertion that “deposit would be massive”. The data cited in the article include that the interest rate on Morgan Chase General Savings Account was only about 0.01 per cent, whereas 20 years ago the interest rate on the same product was higher than 4 per cent. Against the backdrop of about 3.4 per cent inflation in the United States, real purchasing power may continue to decline even if the interest rate on part-time deposits is around 3.25 per cent.

  • Morgan Chase general savings rate is about 0.01 per cent.
  • The rate of return on the partially stable currency incentive project is about 3.5 to 3.75 per cent.
  • In the first quarter of 2026, American banking earned $80.5 billion.

In contrast, some US trading platforms offer returns of between 3.5% and 3.75% for specific stable currency projects. Thus, the encryption industry believes that banks are not constrained by the inability to compete, but rather maintain low-interest deposit patterns over the long term, while overall profitability remains strong.

I'll see you in mid-September.

According to the article, the next round of Senate deliberations will determine the short-term course of the debate. On the one hand, the banking sector would like to limit the price-stabilization incentive through stricter bill language; on the other hand, if the Clarity Act were blocked, the encryption industry might continue to seek greater product space under the existing GENIUS framework.

The outcome of the debate is not only about whether the SGP can become a mainstream product, but also about how the United States will define the border between SGP and traditional deposits.