Dispute over stablecoin issuers: how banks are rethinking their role in the digital economy

A discussion at the international forum revealed a deep divide between traditional financial authorities and crypto entrepreneurs on the issue of who should control the issuance and yield of digital assets. On one side are the leaders of the crypto industry, demanding freedom of competition among private issuers, and on the other are central bankers concerned about losing government sovereignty over the money supply.

Why Coinbase Advocates for Issuers’ Right to Yield

The management of the largest crypto exchange insists that stablecoin holders should receive rewards for holding their funds. The reasoning is simple: people should not be deprived of the opportunity to earn on their own capital. But this is only the surface layer of the company’s position.

At a deeper level, it concerns global competition between jurisdictions. Private issuers point to examples from other countries — China has already announced plans to provide yield on its digital yuan. If US regulators ban rewards from stablecoins, dominant positions in the financial system will be captured by offshore competitors not bound by American law. Such a scenario would shift financial power in favor of less developed jurisdictions with a more liberal approach.

Bank Positions: Why Sovereignty Is More Valuable Than Innovation

European central bank leaders expressed strong opposition. In their view, when private issuers offer returns on stablecoin holdings, it undermines the very foundation of the banking system. Yield attracts deposits from the traditional banking sector, weakening financial institutions and threatening macroeconomic stability.

The head of the French central bank elaborated on this position in a philosophical-political direction. Money supply, in his conviction, is inextricably linked to the concept of democratic sovereignty. When the state loses control over the monetary circulation, it loses a policy tool. Even the planned digital euro, which the EU central banks are working on, should not generate income for its holders — authorities must retain a monopoly on monetary management.

The Ideological Battle: Decentralization vs. State Control

Crypto advocates are raising the debate to a more conceptual level. Bitcoin, as a decentralized protocol without a central issuer, offers an alternative to the traditional gold standard. Coinbase’s CEO stated that global financial systems are evolving toward a “Bitcoin standard” — a currency protected from inflation and manipulation by any state.

The current BTC price at $83.06K reflects growing investor confidence in this concept. The crypto community insists: Bitcoin is more independent than any central bank because neither the state, nor a company, nor an individual has control over it.

Bankers dismissed this argument, reframing the debate in geopolitical terms. Independent central banks of developed democracies, in their view, deserve more trust than “anonymous cryptocurrency issuers.” Governments risk sovereignty if they allow private monetary systems to dominate the market, especially in vulnerable developing economies.

CLARITY as a Reflection of Political Confrontation

In the US Senate, the fate of the CLARITY bill, aimed at regulating the crypto market, hangs in the balance. Its consideration was halted immediately after Coinbase actively opposed the provision banning stablecoin yields.

This is not just a technical dispute over digital asset parameters. Behind each position lies a vision of the future architecture of the monetary system. Crypto entrepreneurs fight for the right to multiple issuers and competitive conditions. Central banks defend the state’s right to exclusive control over money issuance. The outcome of this conflict will determine whether different types of issuers — government banks and private companies — will coexist in the digital economy, or if one model will prevail.