Traditional banks may face a steeper competitive challenge from crypto firms than commonly assumed, not because of technological inferiority, but due to a prolonged regulatory stalemate over stablecoins. That’s the core argument from Colin Butler, executive vice president of capital markets at Mega Matrix, a firm focused on digital asset infrastructure. He contends that while banks have poured capital into blockchain and stablecoin-ready systems, they are effectively handcuffed by Washington’s failure to provide a clear regulatory classification for these assets.
“Their general counsels are telling their boards that you cannot justify the capital expenditure until you know whether stablecoins will be treated as deposits, securities, or a distinct payment instrument,” Butler explained in an interview with Cointelegraph. This ambiguity creates a critical bottleneck: banks can build the infrastructure, but their risk and compliance divisions will not approve full-scale deployment without knowing the regulatory rulebook.
Top stablecoins by market cap. Source: CoinMarketCap
The investment is tangible. JPMorgan’s Onyx blockchain network, BNY Mellon’s digital custody platform, and Citigroup’s tokenized deposit experiments are testaments to the industry’s preparatory work. Yet, without a definitive framework—potentially from Congress or agencies like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—these projects remain in pilot phases, unable to achieve the scale that would justify their cost.
In contrast, crypto-native firms have long operated in regulatory gray zones and are structurally accustomed to navigating uncertainty. “Banks, by contrast, cannot operate comfortably in that gray area,” Butler noted. Their regulated status and public charters demand clarity that the current political debate has not provided.
Yield Gap Could Accelerate Deposit Migration
A second, powerful force is the vast chasm in yield between stablecoin-based products and traditional bank accounts. Butler cited that leading exchanges offer 4% to 5% annually on stablecoin balances, while the national average for US savings accounts hovers below 0.5%, according to the Federal Reserve’s latest data. This isn’t just a theoretical difference; history shows depositors migrate swiftly for better returns, as seen with the shift to money market funds in the 1970s.
Today’s transition could be exponentially faster. Moving funds from a bank to a stablecoin wallet can take minutes, not days, and the incentive—a 8-10x yield premium—is stark. Fabian Dori, chief investment officer at Sygnum, a digital asset bank, acknowledges the competitive pressure but urges caution. “The asymmetry is meaningful but not yet critical for the bulk of bank deposits,” he said. “Institutions still prioritize trust, regulatory certainty, and operational resilience over yield alone.”
Dori sees the migration accelerating at the margins first—among globally active corporates, fintech-savvy users, and those already comfortable with digital liquidity. “Once stablecoins are broadly treated as productive digital cash rather than speculative crypto trading tools, the competitive pressure on bank deposits becomes much more visible,” he added.
Restrictions on Yield Could Push Activity Offshore
Regulators are aware of the yield dynamic. Current US law generally prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders, a rule designed to prevent them from becoming unregulated banks. However, yield is still offered indirectly via exchanges through lending, staking, or promotional rewards.
Butler warns that if lawmakers move to close these loopholes for domestically regulated stablecoins, capital will seek yield elsewhere—specifically toward more opaque, offshore structures. He points to products like Ethena’s USDe, a “synthetic dollar” that generates returns via derivatives strategies (like cash-and-carry trades) rather than traditional reserve assets. These mechanisms can provide yield even if regulated, fully-reserved stablecoins cannot.
“Capital doesn’t stop seeking returns,” Butler stated. The unintended consequence of heavy-handed yield restrictions could be a flight of activity and liquidity toward jurisdictions with lighter oversight, potentially increasing systemic risk and reducing consumer protections. This creates a policy dilemma: regulating too narrowly may simply push innovation and capital into even less transparent corners of the financial system.
Related: USDC market cap nears record $80B amid ‘capital flight’ in UAE: Analyst
Related: Stablecoins could form backbone of global payments in 10 years: Billionaire
