In a scenario of growing financial tension, banking institutions have expressed their deep concern regarding the possibility of bank deposits and stablecoins entering into direct competition. According to a recent report from Standard Chartered, it is estimated that the expansion of these digital assets could drain up to one-third of commercial deposits in the United States, which would represent a structural loss of liquidity for the traditional system.
Despite these warnings, several economic policy experts argue that, to date, there is no strong empirical evidence to support a massive migration of funds. According to data from the analytical platform DeFiLlama, the total capitalization of the sector reaches 308.15 billion dollars, this being a record figure that, according to specialists from the Brookings Institution, remains mostly concentrated in activities specific to the cryptographic ecosystem.
However, the legislative debate has intensified due to the proposed CLARITY Act, which contemplates banning interest payments on stable assets. This measure seeks to discourage savers from withdrawing their capital from traditional bank accounts, thus avoiding a systemic risk of disintermediation that could drastically raise financing costs for local families and businesses.
Dispute over passive yield and financial margin stability
The American Bankers Association has prioritized the restriction of yields on these assets for 2026, arguing that allowing interest would create unfair competition. Therefore, regional banks consider themselves the most vulnerable, as they rely significantly on net interest margins, seeing their ability to grant loans threatened if low-cost deposits migrate toward blockchain-based infrastructures.
Furthermore, prominent industry figures such as Jeremy Allaire, CEO of Circle, have called these fears “absurd,” defending that technological innovation does not undermine monetary policy. Thus, technology advocates argue that banning interest will only push capital toward less regulated offshore markets, weakening the competitive position of the U.S. financial infrastructure against powers like China.
How likely is it that European regulators will follow the restrictive model of the United States?
For its part, the European Banking Authority maintains a cautious stance, indicating that the current low level of adoption in the region does not pose an imminent risk of dollarization. However, they acknowledge that a significant increase in the use of these assets could generate complex cross-border legal frictions, which is why the European Central Bank closely monitors the development of alternatives such as tokenized deposits.
Looking ahead, the coexistence between bank deposits and stablecoins will depend on the ability of lawmakers to balance security with efficiency. The final vote on the CLARITY Act is expected to define whether banks must adapt to an environment of greater competition or if the legal framework will protect their traditional role as exclusive custodians of public savings.
