\n
![](\"https:\/\/media.crypto.news\/2025\/10\/crypto-news-Web3-is-open-option02.webp\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\n Summary<\/span>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The American Bankers Association is escalating its campaign against interest\u2011bearing payment stablecoins, arguing they could drain deposits from community banks and cut local lending by billions of dollars even if a White House study downplays the risk. In an article for the ABA Banking Journal, the association\u2019s chief economist writes that \u201cthe live policy concern is not whether prohibiting yield on payment stablecoins would impact bank lending,\u201d but \u201cwhether allowing yield on payment stablecoins would encourage deposit flight \u2014 especially from community banks \u2014 thus raising banks\u2019 funding costs and reducing local lending.\u201dbankingjournal.<\/p>\n The ABA\u2019s critique targets a recent report from the White House<\/a> Council of Economic Advisers, which modeled the effects of banning yield on payment stablecoins and found that eliminating interest would increase total U.S. bank loans by only $2.1 billion, or 0.02%, at the cost of about $800 million a year in lost consumer welfare. \u201cPolicymakers should not take comfort from a study showing that prohibiting stablecoin yield might have a small, near-term effect on aggregate lending,\u201d the ABA article says, calling that \u201cnot the contested scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n In its own work, the association asks what happens if yield\u2011bearing payment stablecoins<\/a> reach 5\u201310% of U.S. bank deposits and become genuine competitors to insured savings. A one\u2011pager on \u201cImplications for Community Banks in Iowa\u201d estimates that if $5.3\u2013$10.6 billion of deposits move from Iowa banks into payment stablecoins, lending in the state could fall by $4.4\u2013$8.7 billion as institutions are forced to shrink balance sheets or replace deposits with more expensive wholesale funding.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ABA Journal piece stresses that when a community bank loses deposits, \u201cit must replace funding quickly \u2014 often through higher-cost wholesale borrowing,\u201d while also raising deposit rates to keep remaining customers, pushing up the cost of funds and \u201ctranslat[ing] into less lending and higher borrowing costs for households and small businesses.\u201d That concern echoes earlier research cited by the National Law Review, which highlighted Independent Community Bankers of America<\/a> data suggesting that allowing interest on payment stablecoins could ultimately reduce community bank lending by as much as $850 billion off an estimated $1.3 trillion in deposit losses.<\/p>\n By contrast, the CEA\u2019s baseline assumes today\u2019s \u201cimmature\u201d stablecoin market of roughly $300 billion and focuses on how much extra lending a yield ban might generate, concluding that fears about stablecoins draining deposits are \u201cquantitatively small\u201d even under worst\u2011case scenarios. The ABA flips that framing on its head, warning that in a future $1\u20132 trillion stablecoin market, yield would be \u201cthe mechanism that would accelerate migration out of bank deposits,\u201d particularly from smaller banks into large institutions and into stablecoin reserves backed largely by U.S. Treasuries.<\/p>\n As Congress hammers out legislation like the GENIUS Act and CLARITY Act<\/a> to regulate payment stablecoins and, in some drafts, ban or tightly constrain yield, the ABA\u2019s numbers are likely to be wielded as political ammunition against \u201cstablecoin as a savings product.\u201d For community bankers, the stakes are stark: either stablecoins remain payment tools with no interest, or they become high\u2011yield competitors that risk redirecting local savings away from small\u2011town loans and into digital dollars parked in custodial wallets and Treasury portfolios.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div>\n\n\n