Moody's: Stablecoins do not affect the banking industry in the short term, but a market value of $300 billion and disputes over the CLARITY Act serve as a warning.

Moody’s Analyst Abhi Srivastava states that the impact of stablecoins on the banking industry remains limited for now—U.S. restrictions on interest-bearing regulations make it difficult for them to replace traditional deposits on a large scale; however, the $300 billion market cap and the rapid expansion of tokenized RWA have forced banking players to face long-term competitive pressures. At the same time, whether interest-bearing features can be opened up is the core controversy stalling the CLARITY Act in Congress.
(Background summary: Formal regulation of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins! UK’s Financial Services and Markets Bill signed into law)
(Additional background: Breaking news! Fed Chair: Views stablecoins as a form of currency, not a central bank digital currency for personal use)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• $300 billion market cap, but impact still “limited”
• Cross-border payments and on-chain finance: the true expansion track for stablecoins
• CLARITY Act: interest-bearing clauses stall the bill in Congress
• The real cost of interest bans: data speaks
• Short-term safety, long-term pressure: the true situation of the banking industry

Moody’s provides an assessment that temporarily eases concerns in the banking industry: stablecoins will not pose a systemic threat to the traditional financial system in the short term—but the word “temporarily” hides many caveats.

$300 billion market cap, but impact still “limited”

Abhi Srivastava, Vice President of Moody’s Investors Service Digital Economy Department, told CoinTelegraph that the actual usage scale of stablecoins remains limited, despite their market value surpassing $300 billion at the end of last year. In an interview, he straightforwardly said: “For the banking industry, the current disruptive risk appears limited. In the short term, U.S. regulations prohibiting interest payments on stablecoins mean they are unlikely to replace traditional deposits on a large scale domestically.”

He further added that the existing U.S. payment infrastructure has reached standards of “fast, low-cost, reliable,” which makes stablecoins less advantageous for substitution in the domestic payment market. In other words, the regulatory framework itself is the thickest firewall preventing stablecoins from penetrating the banking system.

Cross-border payments and on-chain finance: the true expansion track for stablecoins

Srivastava observed that the real growth areas for stablecoins are in domains where U.S. regulation is relatively hard to enforce: cross-border commerce, on-chain financial applications, and payment scenarios in emerging markets. These areas have weak traditional banking infrastructure and low efficiency, providing opportunities for stablecoins to enter.

He pointed out that as stablecoin market value continues to grow, along with the proliferation of tokenized real-world assets (RWA), the banking industry will face increasingly fierce competition—long-term, this could lead to deposit outflows and a chain reaction that compresses banks’ lending capacity. This is not alarmism but a natural extension of structural trends.

CLARITY Act: interest-bearing clauses stall the bill in Congress

The core battleground for stablecoin regulation is now playing out in the U.S. Congress. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act) is currently the most comprehensive crypto regulation framework, covering asset classification, regulatory jurisdiction, and market supervision—yet the bill remains stuck in Congress and has not advanced.

One of the main stumbling blocks is the clause banning interest-bearing stablecoins. Crypto firms like Coinbase have publicly opposed early drafts, citing reasons such as lack of legal protections for open-source developers and that the interest ban would hinder industry innovation. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis recently announced plans to introduce a revised draft, but according to Politico, the new version also faces opposition and has not yet been released.

Industry executives and analysts warn that if the CLARITY Act cannot pass, the crypto industry may face more aggressive regulatory actions in the future—an legislative vacuum often becomes a breeding ground for regulatory crackdowns.

The true cost of interest bans: data speaks

It’s worth noting that arguments supporting the prohibition of interest-bearing stablecoins are not backed by data. The White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) conducted a quantitative assessment showing that banning interest on stablecoins would only enable U.S. banks to increase lending by about $2.1 billion, accounting for just 0.02% of total lending—nearly negligible.

However, Standard Chartered analysts’ estimates point in another direction: if the interest-bearing clause is ultimately approved, by 2028, up to $500 billion could shift from traditional bank deposits into stablecoin products. The discrepancy between these figures reflects the tug-of-war of interests in regulatory negotiations—bank industry fears may not be proportional to actual risks.

The bill still needs to clear at least five hurdles: Senate Banking Committee markup, a 60-vote majority in the full Senate, coordination with the Agriculture Committee version, integration with the House’s July 2025 version, and finally presidential signing. Each step is a variable.

Short-term safety, long-term pressure: the true situation of the banking industry

Moody’s offers a relatively neutral conclusion: no need to panic now, but don’t let your guard down. Srivastava’s core argument is that the current regulatory framework remains the biggest constraint on stablecoin expansion—once the framework loosens, the competitive landscape could change rapidly.

From the perspective of dynamic shifts, the tension between stablecoins and traditional banks is essentially a race against regulatory timing: stablecoins have already advanced technologically, and the speed of regulatory catch-up will determine who dominates the next decade of financial infrastructure. The direction of the CLARITY Act will be one of the most critical indicators to watch in this game.