February 2, 2026 marks a decisive turning point for cryptocurrency regulation in the United States. The White House is convening an unprecedented summit bringing together traditional finance giants and crypto industry leaders to resolve a major legislative impasse: should stablecoin rewards be authorized?
A $500 Billion Conflict Paralyzes Legislation
Direct intervention by the Trump administration comes after the spectacular failure of a mid-January Senate vote attempt. On January 14, 2026, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, publicly withdrew his support for the Senate Banking Committee’s bill hours before a crucial vote, denouncing provisions that would « kill stablecoin rewards. »
This decision forced Senator Tim Scott, Chairman of the Banking Committee, to indefinitely postpone the legislative session, acknowledging that persistent disagreements made passage uncertain. The stakes go beyond the technical framework: it’s about determining whether the United States will maintain its leadership position in digital finance.
The Heart of the Problem: The GENIUS Act Loophole
The GENIUS Act, the first federal stablecoin legislation signed in July 2025, established a strict framework: stablecoins must be backed 100% by liquid assets (dollars, Treasury bills, repurchase agreements). The law formally prohibits issuers from paying interest to holders.
But it remains silent on a crucial question: can third parties like exchanges offer « rewards » to users holding these tokens? This legal gap has created a regulatory battleground between two opposing visions.
The Banking Threat: An Announced Deposit Hemorrhage
Standard Chartered sounded the alarm in late January 2026: approximately $500 billion could migrate from U.S. banks to stablecoins by the end of 2028, with an additional trillion dollars from emerging markets. Regional U.S. banks are particularly vulnerable, with some deriving up to 80% of their revenue from net interest margin on deposits.
Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, expressed these concerns at Davos in January 2026. With $2 trillion in deposits at the end of 2025, Bank of America would lose a cheap funding source if customers migrated to stablecoins offering higher yields.
The fundamental difference lies in financial architecture: banks operate on a fractional reserve system enabling credit creation, while stablecoins function on a full reserve model (1:1), eliminating bank run risk but reducing credit creation capacity.
The Crypto Counteroffensive: Innovation vs. Protectionism
Brian Armstrong defends a radically different vision. In a CNBC interview in January 2026, he stated that « Americans should be able to get better returns on their money » and that « banks should compete by offering better rates rather than seeking regulatory protection. »
Jeremy Allaire, CEO of Circle, took a more diplomatic approach at Davos, emphasizing that stablecoins constitute neutral and complementary infrastructure rather than a threat. He notes that all major jurisdictions – the U.S. GENIUS Act, the European MiCA framework, and laws in Japan, UAE, Hong Kong and Singapore – prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest.
Drawing on the history of money market funds ($11 trillion in assets today), Allaire explains that these funds did not destroy the banking system despite similar concerns in the past. Circle projects a 40% annual growth rate for the stablecoin market.
A $193 Million Political War Chest
The crypto industry isn’t just debating: it’s mobilizing considerable financial power. On January 28, 2026, Fairshake, the sector’s main PAC, announced a $193 million treasury for the November 2026 midterm elections.
This colossal sum comes from massive contributions: $25 million from Coinbase, $25 million from Ripple, and $24 million from Andreessen Horowitz. In 2024, Fairshake spent $195 million supporting pro-crypto candidates, including Senator Sherrod Brown. The message to legislators is clear: the sector has the resources to reward its allies and punish its detractors.
The Trump Administration: Unprecedented Support
Unlike the Biden administration perceived as hostile, Trump promised to make the United States « the crypto capital of the world. » On March 6, 2025, he signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve capitalizing on 200,000 seized bitcoins. A digital asset policy council, led by David Sacks, coordinates the government approach.
At the SEC, Paul Atkins launched « Project Crypto » aimed at modernizing the regulatory framework. This convergence of political support creates an unprecedented favorable context, making the current blockage all the more concerning.
Possible Scenarios
1. Compromise on « rewards » definition: Distinguish legitimate activity rewards from disguised interest payments on passive holding.
2. Status quo with regulatory clarifications: Regulators would issue interpretive guidance without modifying the law.
3. Extended delay or failure: The bill would remain blocked until the midterm elections or beyond, leaving the United States without a clear legislative framework.
A Defining Moment for American Finance
The numbers speak for themselves: a $310 billion market today, projected to reach $2-3.7 trillion by 2028-2030; $33 trillion in transaction volume in 2025; 40% annual growth; and major institutional players (Visa, Mastercard, BlackRock) deploying at scale.
Faced with this dynamic, inaction is not an option. Too many restrictions would push innovation out of U.S. territory. But too much laxity would weaken the banking system and create systemic vulnerabilities.
The February 2, 2026 meeting doesn’t guarantee an immediate breakthrough, but it confirms an inescapable reality: stablecoins are no longer a technical detail. They are now perceived as a structural element capable of redrawing the balance between banks, markets and financial technologies.
The ability of both camps to accept concessions will determine whether the United States establishes a coherent regulatory framework or remains at an impasse. The White House has signaled that the issue is being handled at the highest level of government. The question remains whether this intervention will be enough to unlock an existential question: what will tomorrow’s financial system look like?
