The law of genius may be Close the door on interest-paying stablecoins, but they’re not done looking for yield. It has simply pushed this research into new structures, where the return comes through the design of DeFi and not through the stablecoin itself.
BeInCrypto asked two industry experts how the market is adapting.
Stefan Muhlbauer, Head of US Government Affairs at certecHe says the issue is still politically controversial. He says”
“The yield issue continues to face strong opposition from banks, beyond the GENIUS Act, but is also driving discussions during the final hurdle of the Senate version of the CLARITY Act market structure bill.”
In his view, the line now lies between products that resemble interest and products that offer rewards differently.
“Banks aim to capture the yield earned as interest, while DeFi players are innovating around products that treat rewards as a service fee through mechanisms like staking,” Muehlbauer continues.
Anton Efimenko, co-founder of 8 blockssees the same dichotomy. Notes:
“Under US law, stablecoin issuers cannot issue stablecoins with a negative cumulative return. Re-staking is essentially prohibited. At the same time, “there is nothing preventing those stablecoins from being used in DeFi products that generate revenue through staking.”
He adds that the opportunity may extend even further. “If you think about the structure right, the stablecoin issuer can also launch its own DeFi platform and distribute the deposit yield through that layer.”
This leaves the US stablecoin market in an unusual place. Yield remains one of the strongest product incentives in crypto, but in 2026, it will need to be packaged with more care.
Federal charters change the balance of power
Federal charters It is where the balance of power changes most clearly. Cryptocurrency companies have already entered the US financial system, and the focus is now on how well they can compete directly with institutions that have controlled access to payments and settlements for decades.
Mühlbauer sees this as where the greatest reorganization occurs:
“Granting national trust bank charters to local crypto companies like Circle and Paxos has effectively dismantled the ‘walled garden’ that once protected legacy giants like JPMorgan Chase from outside tech competition.”
He believes that these licenses change who can work with an institutional status within the system. By securing federal charters, he says, digital asset issuers obtain “the formal federal clearance necessary to compete directly for underlying payment and settlement services.” This gives them a path to “operational independence” rather than constant dependence on banking partners.
The main change is that local cryptocurrency businesses no longer need to rely entirely on existing banks for legitimacy, says Fernando Lillo Aranda, marketing director at Zoomex.
Aranda’s notes:
“Once a non-bank issuer can operate under a federal framework or charter under OCC oversight, it is no longer just a technology company leasing access to the banking system.”
In his view, this gives companies like Circle or Paxos a clearer position on payments, custody and management of reserves, shifting them directly to regulated financial institutions rather than to external partners who look to them.
Meanwhile, Lillo Aranda does not see this as a sudden reversal of the bank’s dominance:
“This doesn’t make JPMorgan suddenly weak – the incumbents still dominate distribution, balance sheet depth, and customer confidence.”
But he believes that the competitive gap has narrowed.
While banks once had the regulatory advantage and cryptocurrency companies moved faster in product design, some original cryptocurrency issuers now have both. This would shift competition away from access to core markets and towards who can scale trust, distribution and integration faster.
Efimenko agrees that the market is opening up, but he does not think legacy finance has lost its edge.
“The US stablecoin market will be very competitive, but banks and asset managers will still have the advantage,” he says. For him, the decisive factor is distribution.
“Cryptocurrency companies have to spend significant sums on marketing to attract investors, while banks already have these investors on hand.”
Federal charters give cryptocurrency issuers more leeway to operate on their own terms, but banks still control customer relationships that turn financial products into mass-market products.
Federal rules rise, but states remain in the room
The GENIUS Act may have created a federal pathway for stablecoinsBut it did not erase the state regulations that helped define the earlier stages of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States. What it did was put it in a more restrictive mode.
Muehlbauer says the era of states acting as independent states “Innovation laboratories” Pretty much over. From his point of view, the market is entering a period ofCooperative federalism Washington sets the main rules for controlling stablecoins.
“Although the Wyoming model and BitLicense in New York continue, they are no longer autonomous,” Muhlbauer says. He says they now operate within a federal framework that sets minimum standards for capital and reserves.
It also indicates a strict limit to the extent of this State-led road You can go:
“Even successful state-chartered stablecoin issuers face a cap. Once the volume reaches $10 billion, they must transition to primary federal supervision by the OCC.”
This leaves states with a role, but not the leadership role they once claimed in cryptocurrency policy. They still influence regional licensing, supervision, and experimentation, although the center of gravity is now in Washington.
CLARITY still has to solve the featured question
Stablecoins may now have a federal framework, but the larger question of token classification remains unresolved. This is where the law of clarity comes into play.
Muehlbauer says the bill is designed to address what he calls “the problem.” “Security forever” The dilemma by updating how US law treats tokens throughout their life cycle. He says:
“The law isolates the status of an ‘investment contract’ by introducing ‘additional assets,’ tokens whose value depends on the ‘entrepreneurial or management efforts’ of a central group, but only during their initial centralization phase.”
In his telling, the bill creates a path for tokens to leave this category once the network evolves beyond heavy reliance on a core team. Muhlbauer says:
“To provide a legal exit ramp, the law sets a ‘maturity’ test, allowing cryptocurrencies to upgrade to digital goods once the network becomes sufficiently decentralized.”
He says the creators will be able to certify what the administrative efforts have been “nominal,” Open a 60-day window for the SEC to contest this claim or allow the asset to proceed with non-security status assumed in secondary trading.
If this framework survives negotiations, it could bring the United States closer to a usable definition for utility tokens. Until then, stablecoins may have moved into a clearer legal era, while many other cryptocurrencies have Still waiting For her answer.
Final thoughts
The GENIUS Act gave the United States the clearest stablecoin framework to date, but it also opened a new phase of competition. The debate now reaches beyond regulation itself and addresses who controls issuance, who captures the economy surrounding the digital dollar, and who has direct access to the financial system.
Müllbauer’s answers suggest that Washington has moved stablecoins to a more formal federal system, while leaving unresolved the next major battle over token classification and market structure.
Meanwhile, Efimenko points to the commercial reality behind this legal advance. Even with new charter opportunities and room for product innovation, native crypto companies still have to compete with banks that already control distribution and customer access.
Lilo Aranda makes this point clearly: Federal charters may have narrowed the old moat around legacy finance, but they have not erased the advantage that incumbents enjoyed in scale, trust, and customer ownership.
Stablecoins are entering a more defined legal era, but the balance of power between cryptocurrency companies, banks, regulators, and token issuers remains contested in real time.
this post American Axis and Wall Street 2.0 appeared first on BeInCrypto.
