US Banking Group Attacks OCC Over Stablecoin Deposit Rules

ABA Criticizes OCC Over Stablecoin Rules, Citing Risk to Bank Deposits

Washington D.C. – The American Bankers Association (ABA) on Wednesday publicly criticized the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for its final rules implementing the GENIUS Act, specifically targeting the removal of a “rebuttable presumption” clause concerning third-party arrangements for yield generation. The ABA argues this change allows stablecoin issuers to circumvent yield prohibitions and divert bank deposits. This regulatory rollback and the banking industry’s defense are now in a final sprint ahead of the rules’ January 2027 effective date.

ABA Alleges OCC Deviated from Congressional Intent

In a statement released Wednesday, the ABA asserted that the OCC’s recently finalized rules for the issuance and custody of payment stablecoins deviate from Congress’s legislative intent regarding the GENIUS Act’s yield prohibition. While acknowledging “several positive steps” within the rules, the ABA focused its criticism on the yield provisions, highlighting the OCC’s decision to remove a protective clause from the original proposal that presumed certain third-party arrangements to be in violation of the yield ban.

The ABA’s statement specifically pointed out that the final rule “removed the protective mechanism in the OCC’s original proposal that would have addressed indirect arrangements involving affiliated companies, exchanges, and other issuance partners.” The consequence, the association contends, is that “payment stablecoin issuers can technically circumvent the statutory prohibition and effectively pay equivalent yields.” The organization further argued that the OCC’s refusal to adopt a “broader presumption for arrangements that circumvent the yield prohibition” leaves structural loopholes in the regulations.

Concerns Over Blurring Lines Between Stablecoins and Bank Deposits

The ABA’s core argument centers on the GENIUS Act’s clear delineation between “payment stablecoins” and “traditional bank deposits.” The association believes the OCC’s final rules, by loosening these restrictions, will blur this critical line. “The risk of these loopholes is that they undermine the boundary Congress drew between payment stablecoins and traditional bank deposits, threatening the funding that banks use to drive lending and the U.S. economy,” the statement read. This framing elevates the dispute from a technical debate over the inclusion or exclusion of a presumption clause to a systemic risk concerning the stability of the banking system’s funding.

Industry Divided on OCC’s Decision

Notably, the final rule has elicited divided reactions within the industry. The Blockchain Association, representing the cryptocurrency sector, has instead endorsed the OCC’s decision to remove the yield presumption, stating that the final rule is “closer to the statutory text.” In contrast, the Bank Policy Institute, another banking industry lobbying group, has aligned with the ABA, criticizing the “decision to replace clarity with ambiguity by removing the yield presumption, exposing the banking system and customers to the risk of deposit outflows.” While divisions within the banking industry itself appear minimal, the true opposition lies between the “banking camp” and the “crypto camp.”

Yields Remain a Key Battleground

Stablecoin yields have been a central point of contention throughout the legislative process, including discussions surrounding the GENIUS Act and the subsequent Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act). The CLARITY Act, a current legislative effort to structure the cryptocurrency market, has stalled in the Senate following a procedural vote last month. In the absence of a comprehensive market structure bill, the OCC’s interpretation of the rules has effectively become the de facto standard for determining whether yields can be paid.

Implications for the Taiwanese Market and Future Regulatory Landscape

For the Taiwanese market, the significance of this dispute lies not in the specific choices of a single regulatory agency, but in a broader, long-term structural issue: as payment stablecoins can offer yields through “technical circumvention and effective payment,” the interest rate competitiveness of traditional bank deposits will be continuously diluted. The ABA’s current lobbying efforts are essentially aimed at securing a regulatory moat for the banking industry’s net interest margins.

With the OCC finalizing its rules ahead of the GENIUS Act’s January 2027 effective date, other federal departments, including the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, are expected to issue complementary rules within their respective jurisdictions. This suggests that the authority to interpret “yield provisions” will expand from the OCC’s sole discretion to a multi-departmental coordination. The ABA’s latest statement can be seen as a prelude to further lobbying efforts. Before the Fed and Treasury release their rules, banking lobby groups will continue to exert pressure, demanding the re-inclusion of “indirect arrangements” and “evasive conduct” within the scope of presumed violations. For stablecoin issuers, regulatory uncertainty in the latter half of 2026 will be a more significant variable than price volatility.