The American Pivot And Wall Street 2.0

What Happened

He adds that the opportunity may extend even further. “If you think the structure through properly, a stablecoin issuer can also launch its own DeFi platform and distribute deposit yield through that layer.”

Market Context

BeInCrypto asked two industry experts how the market is adapting.

“The question of yield is still facing strong opposition from banks, beyond the GENIUS Act, but also leading to discussions during the recent roadblock of the Senate’s version of the CLARITY Act market structure bill.”

That leaves the U.S. stablecoin market in an unusual place. Yield remains one of the strongest product incentives in crypto, but in 2026, it has to be packaged with much more care.

Fernando Lillo Aranda, Marketing Director at Zoomex, says the key change is that crypto-native firms no longer need to rely entirely on incumbent banks for legitimacy.

At the same time, Lillo Aranda does not see this as a sudden reversal of bank dominance:

Where banks once held the regulatory advantage and crypto firms mainly moved faster on product design, some crypto-native issuers now have both. That shifts the contest away from basic market access and toward who can scale trust, distribution, and integration fastest.

Efimenko agrees that the market is opening up, but he does not think legacy finance has lost its edge.

Why It Matters

The GENIUS Act may have closed the door on interest-bearing payment stablecoins, but it has not ended the search for yield. It has simply pushed that search into new structures, where the return comes through DeFi design rather than through the stablecoin itself.

Details

Stefan Muehlbauer, Head of U.S. Government Affairs at CertiK, says the issue remains politically contested. He says”

In his view, the line now sits between products that resemble interest and products that present rewards differently.

“Banks are taking aim at yield that is earned as interest, while DeFi players are innovating around products that treat rewards more as a service fee through mechanisms such as staking,” Muehlbauer continues.

Anton Efimenko, co-founder at 8Blocks, sees the same divide. He notes:

“Under U.S. law, stablecoin issuers can’t issue stablecoins with passive yield accrual. Rebasing is basically banned. At the same time, “there’s nothing stopping those stablecoins from being used in DeFi products that generate yield through staking.”

Federal Charters Change the Balance of Power

Federal charters are where the balance of power changes most visibly. Crypto-native firms are already entering the U.S. financial system, and the focus now is how directly they can compete with the institutions that have controlled access to payments and settlement for decades.

Muehlbauer argues that this is where the biggest realignment is happening:

“The granting of national trust bank charters to crypto-native firms like Circle and Paxos has effectively dismantled the ‘walled garden’ that once protected legacy giants like JPMorgan Chase from outside tech competition.”

In his view, these licenses change who can operate with institutional standing inside the system. By securing federal charters, he says, digital asset issuers gain “the official federal imprimatur needed to compete directly for core payment and settlement services.” That gives them a path to “operational autonomy” rather than continued dependence on banking partners.

Aranda notes:

“Once a non-bank issuer can operate under a federal framework or an OCC-supervised charter, it is no longer just a technology company renting access to the banking system.”

In his view, that gives firms like Circle or Paxos clearer standing across payments, custody, and reserve management, turning them into directly regulated financial institutions rather than outside partners looking in.

“That does not suddenly make JPMorgan weak – incumbents still dominate distribution, balance sheet depth, and client trust.”

But, he argues that the competitive gap has narrowed.