Wall Street’s Wobbly Waltz with Crypto: A Tale of Yields and Charters

by

Well, I say, old bean, it appears the GENIUS Act has rather put the kibosh on interest-bearing stablecoins, but what? It’s not as if the chaps have given up on their quest for yield. Oh no, they’ve simply taken a detour into the labyrinthine world of DeFi, where the returns are as cunningly disguised as Jeeves’s opinions on my latest waistcoat.

BeInCrypto, ever the intrepid sleuth, had a chinwag with a couple of industry wizards to suss out how the market’s coping with this new state of affairs.

Stefan Muehlbauer, the chap in charge of U.S. Government Affairs at CertiK, reckons the whole business is still as politically fraught as a Bertie Wooster scheme. He chimes in:

“The question of yield is still facing strong opposition from banks, beyond the GENIUS Act, but also leading to discussions during the recent roadblock of the Senate’s version of the CLARITY Act market structure bill.”

Apparently, the line now sits between products that resemble interest and those that present rewards with all the subtlety of a Gussie Fink-Nottle explaining his passion for newts. Muehlbauer elaborates:

“Banks are taking aim at yield that is earned as interest, while DeFi players are innovating around products that treat rewards more as a service fee through mechanisms such as staking,” he continues, with the air of a man who’s just explained the offside rule to a particularly dense aunt.

Anton Efimenko, co-founder at 8Blocks, sees the same divide. He remarks, with the precision of a Jeeves monologue:

“Under U.S. law, stablecoin issuers can’t issue stablecoins with passive yield accrual. Rebasing is basically banned. At the same time, ‘there’s nothing stopping those stablecoins from being used in DeFi products that generate yield through staking.’”

He adds, with a twinkle in his eye, “If you think the structure through properly, a stablecoin issuer can also launch its own DeFi platform and distribute deposit yield through that layer.” Quite the brainwave, what?

So, the U.S. stablecoin market finds itself in a bit of a pickle. Yield remains the bee’s knees in crypto, but in 2026, it’s got to be wrapped up with all the care of a Christmas present from Aunt Dahlia.

Federal Charters: The New Balancing Act

Federal charters, my dear reader, are where the balance of power shifts more dramatically than Bertie’s fortunes after a night at the Drones Club. Crypto-native firms are waltzing into the U.S. financial system, and the question now is how directly they can tango with the old guard that’s been controlling payments and settlement for decades.

Muehlbauer opines that this is where the biggest realignment is happening:

“The granting of national trust bank charters to crypto-native firms like Circle and Paxos has effectively dismantled the ‘walled garden’ that once protected legacy giants like JPMorgan Chase from outside tech competition.”

In his view, these licenses change who can operate with institutional standing inside the system. By securing federal charters, he says, digital asset issuers gain “the official federal imprimatur needed to compete directly for core payment and settlement services.” That gives them a path to “operational autonomy” rather than continued dependence on banking partners. Rather spiffing, eh?

Fernando Lillo Aranda, Marketing Director at Zoomex, points out that crypto-native firms no longer need to rely entirely on incumbent banks for legitimacy. He notes:

“Once a non-bank issuer can operate under a federal framework or an OCC-supervised charter, it is no longer just a technology company renting access to the banking system.”

In his view, that gives firms like Circle or Paxos clearer standing across payments, custody, and reserve management, turning them into directly regulated financial institutions rather than outside partners looking in. Quite the upgrade, what?

At the same time, Lillo Aranda doesn’t see this as a sudden reversal of bank dominance:

“That does not suddenly make JPMorgan weak – incumbents still dominate distribution, balance sheet depth, and client trust.”

But, he argues that the competitive gap has narrowed. Where banks once held the regulatory advantage and crypto firms mainly moved faster on product design, some crypto-native issuers now have both. That shifts the contest away from basic market access and toward who can scale trust, distribution, and integration fastest. A proper race, I say.

Efimenko agrees that the market is opening up, but he doesn’t think legacy finance has lost its edge. “The U.S. stablecoin market is going to be highly competitive, but banks and asset managers will still hold the advantage,” he says. For him, the decisive factor is distribution. He quips:

“Crypto companies have to spend heavily on marketing to attract investors, while banks already have those investors on hand.”

Federal charters give crypto-native issuers more room to operate on their own terms, but banks still control the customer relationships that turn financial products into mass-market products. Rather like Jeeves controlling my social calendar, what?

Federal Rules Rise, but the States Still Have a Say

The GENIUS Act may have established a federal path for stablecoins, but it hasn’t erased the state systems that helped define earlier phases of U.S. crypto regulation. What it has done is place them in a more constrained position, rather like Aunt Agatha’s attempts to control my love life.

Muehlbauer says the era of states acting as independent “laboratories of innovation” is largely over. In his view, the market is entering a period of “cooperative federalism” in which Washington sets the main rules for stablecoin oversight.

“Although the Wyoming Model and New York’s BitLicense endure, they are no longer autonomous,” Muehlbauer says. He argues that they now function within a federal framework that sets the minimum standards for capital and reserves.

He also points to a hard limit on how far a state-led route can go:

“Even successful state-chartered stablecoin issuers face a definitive ceiling. Once volume hits $10 billion, they must transition to primary federal oversight by the OCC.”

That leaves states with a role, but not the leading role they once claimed in crypto policy. They still influence licensing, supervision, and regional experimentation, though the center of gravity now sits in Washington. Rather like Jeeves always knowing where the center of gravity is in any given social situation.

CLARITY Still Has to Solve the Token Question

Stablecoins may now have a federal framework, but the larger question of token classification remains as unsettled as Bertie’s love life. That is where the CLARITY Act comes into play.

Muehlbauer says the bill is designed to address what he calls the “security-forever” dilemma by updating how U.S. law treats tokens across their life cycle. He explains:

“The Act isolates the ‘investment contract’ status by introducing ‘Ancillary Assets’, tokens whose value relies on the ‘entrepreneurial or managerial efforts’ of a central group, but only during their initial, centralized phase.”

In his telling, the bill creates a path for tokens to leave that category once a network develops beyond heavy reliance on a core team. Muehlbauer says:

“To provide a legal exit ramp, the Act establishes a ‘Maturity’ test, allowing tokens to graduate to Digital Commodities once the network becomes sufficiently decentralized.”

He says that originators would be able to certify that managerial efforts have become “nominal,” opening a 60-day window for the SEC to challenge that claim or allow the asset to proceed with a presumption of non-security status in secondary trading. Quite the legal hoop-jumping, what?

If that framework survives negotiations, it could bring the U.S. closer to a usable definition for utility tokens. Until then, stablecoins may have moved into a clearer legal era, while much of the rest of crypto still waits for its answer. Rather like waiting for Jeeves to sort out one of my messes.

Final Thoughts

The GENIUS Act has given the U.S. its clearest stablecoin framework yet, but it has also opened a new phase of competition. The debate now reaches beyond regulation itself and into who controls issuance, who captures the economics around digital dollars, and who gets direct access to the financial system. Rather a lot of plates to spin, eh?

Muehlbauer’s answers suggest that Washington has moved stablecoins into a more formal federal order, while leaving the next major fight unresolved around token classification and market structure.

Efimenko, meanwhile, points to the commercial reality behind that legal progress. Even with new charter opportunities and room for product innovation, crypto-native firms still have to compete with banks that already control distribution and client access.

Lillo Aranda sharpens that point: federal charters may have narrowed the old moat around legacy finance, but they have not erased the incumbents’ advantage in scale, trust, and customer ownership.

Stablecoins are entering a more defined legal era, but the balance of power between crypto firms, banks, regulators, and token issuers is still being contested in real time. Rather like a game of cricket where no one’s quite sure who’s winning. Cheers!

Read More

2026-03-30 11:46