Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan’s statement that he’s prepared to issue a stablecoin if Congress provides a regulatory framework didn’t just grab headlines — it underscored how seriously America’s banking sector is now taking digital assets.

Now, as Congress debates stablecoin legislation, a high-stakes power struggle is playing out between traditional banks, tech giants and crypto firms like Tether and Circle — all vying for control over what could become a trillion-dollar stablecoin market in the United States and abroad.

Bank of America, in particular, has been active in the weeks following Moynihan’s Feb. 26 comments, according to people familiar with the matter. Principally through lobbying trade organizations like Bank Policy Institute and American Bankers Association, Bank of America has been pushing lawmakers for rules that would favor established banks’ ability to launch stablecoins while simultaneously limiting commercial enterprises, such as big tech companies (nonbanks) like Amazon and Meta, from also issuing U.S. dollar-backed crypto tokens, the people said.

"The reason why you do that is because if you don't, a retail company, for example, could look at your bank account, your statements, your expenses, and make some really, really intrusive and anti-competitive decisions about how they market to you," one of these people told The Block. "And so Congress a long time ago decided to make that separation. There is no such separation for current payment stablecoin issuers under both bills."

So far, efforts to limit nonbanks haven't gained much traction with both the Senate and House versions of "payment stablecoin" legislation. Each contains provisions that would make it possible for nonbanks to launch USD-pegged tokens that would function similarly to those issued by market leaders Tether and Circle.

Established banks like Bank of America, are hoping to amend the current drafts of legislation in such a way that nonbanks are more heavily restricted from issuing stablecoins, the person also said. Currently, both versions of stablecoin legislation — the Senate’s GENIUS Act and the House’s STABLE Act — would allow for federally "qualified" nonbanks to issue stablecoins.

American Bankers Association and Bank Policy Institute are not solely advocating on behalf of Bank of America, but all established banks interested issuing stablecoins, according to a person familiar with the matter. Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs and BNY are among the other financial institutions showing an interest in shaping stablecoin legislation, according to people familiar with the matter.

Banks would like to "own all of it instead of open networks to exist," one lobbyist familiar with stablecoin discussions in Washington, D.C. told The Block.

Bank of America and Bank Policy Institute declined to comment. American Bankers Association didn't not respond to a request for comment.

While the passage of stablecoin legislation is widely seen as a net positive by banks, nonbanks and existing stablecoin issuers, the outcome of the legislative debate will play a significant role in determining the future structure of the competitive landscape in the United States.

Both versions of stablecoin legislation specifically deal with "payment stablecoins," with the proposed tokens meant to act as a new set of digital payment rails, facilitating less-expensive transactions for consumers and bankers alike while augmenting efficiency, transparency and security.

"There's this kind of territorial battle between the nonbank issuers, the crypto issuers, and potential market entrants like the banks,” according to the lobbyist familiar with talks around stablecoins. "All of the banks are quite excited about either issuing their own stablecoins or perhaps acquiring stablecoin companies that they can then use to issue.… Banks have a distribution advantage because they have all these customers."

Some lawmakers have echoed established banks' concerns, publicly railing against legislation allowing nonbanks to launch stablecoins. Top Democrat Maxine Waters of California noted the lack of separation between banking and commerce during a recent hearing.

"Without that separation, commercial companies like Walmart, Amazon, Facebook, all could all launch their own stablecoin," Waters said earlier this month. "Your very own co-president Elon Musk could also launch his own stablecoin on X under this bill." She also brought up conflicts of interest arising from World Liberty Financial, the DeFi project backed by President Donald Trump, launching its own stablecoin.

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino told The Block it would be disappointing to limit stablecoin issuance to banks only. "If a company like Meta can bring transparency, compliance, and user protection to the table, there’s no reason they shouldn’t participate. Creating artificial barriers only serves to protect incumbents—not users.""

Polygon's Head of Payments and Liquidity, Aishwary Gupta, offered a different point of view shared by many native to the blockchain community.

"Getting too caught up in whether issuers are a pure fintech startup or a massive company like Amazon might be missing the point. What really matters is activity, issuing the stablecoin and the risks that come with it," Gupta told The Block. "Focus should be on whether any entity wanting to issue a stablecoin can meet necessary safety standards. Do they have the reserves properly managed? Are they transparent about how it works? Is their technology secure? Can they protect consumers? Those are crucial questions, regardless of the company's main line of business."

Given President Trump's strong support in both the Senate and House, legislation that supports nonbanks like World Liberty Financial issuing stablecoins could work against banks' interests.

"I'm deeply concerned that the President launched his own stablecoin," said Waters. "I negotiated with my colleagues across the aisle for the past three years to create a safe regulatory framework for stablecoins. Now, we are pushing legislation through as quickly as possible without considering some of the key issues that will impact American investors and consumers."

Not surprisingly, a different opinion can be found across the aisle. 

"My broad philosophy is that you put forward a framework, allow the market to determine winners and losers," Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., co-author of the STABLE act recently said during a press call when asked about the future competitive landscape in the U.S. for stablecoins and big banks.

"Putting forward this framework opens a lot of current financial service entities that are regulated to maybe be interested in the broader crypto space," Steil added. "As you get more people coming online and engaging in competition at the end of the day, that's good for consumers and good for the country."

However, banks are concerned that if adoption of nonbank-issued stablecoin proliferates, it could cause account holders to keep less money in their bank accounts, which could, in turn, spell broader economic problems.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., echoed the sentiment recently, saying stablecoins could "compete with bank deposits and undermine the ability of banks to make loans to consumers and main street businesses."

While banks lobby to restrict nonbanks' ability to launch stablecoins, on another front, the long-gestating Tether-Circle rivalry has been intensifying.

Circle, which is based in the U.S. and adheres to a relatively straightforward strategy for maintaining stablecoin reserves, has in some ways been preparing for the current moment for years.

"They've [Circle] been busy on Capitol Hill," said Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute's Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, during an interview with The Block.

With painful memories of the Terra-Luna stablecoin debacle and the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank still prominent in the minds of many, addressing how such catastrophes can be avoided if the U.S. opens the door to a regulated stablecoin market and how issuers will be expected to maintain capital reserves to back their stablecoins, have both been major topics of conversation.

"The biggest compliance question is the one that everyone has talked about, which is the reserve and the auditing requirements on the reserve. Tether has not done that in the past in the same way that, say, Circle has," said Schulp. "The general conventional wisdom is that the reserve auditing requirements are going to be more difficult for Tether to meet."

"A lot of the conversation here has been drafted with something like Circle in mind," she added.

Circle declined to comment. 

Tether, the world's stablecoin market leader with more than $145 billion in USDT stablecoins issued, does not operate within the U.S., and its token is not available to U.S. residents, according to its website.

Circle, a distant second to Tether with about $60 billion of USDC tokens issued worldwide, would almost certainly favor stablecoin legislation that complicates Tether's ability to compete in the U.S. market.

The U.S.-based issuer has tried to position itself as superior to Tether in terms of the trustworthiness of its reserves. According to the company, its USDC reserves are made up of about 80% in short-dated U.S. Treasurys, with the other roughly 20% held in cash deposits in U.S. bank accounts.

"The reserve is fully transparent and subject to third-party assurance that there are sufficient assets to meet liabilities. It does not contain any other assets of different risk profiles," according to Circle.

That is in contrast to Tether, which backs its USDT stablecoin with a more varied mix of assets including 82% held in cash and cash equivalents (mainly U.S. Treasury bills), 5.5% in Bitcoin, about 4% of reserves backed by precious metals, in addition to roughly 8% kept in "secured loans" and other investments, according to its latest report.

Tether has said it plans to have a "Big Four" accounting firm conduct a full audit. The company also recently hired a new chief financial officer. Both moves are aimed at bolstering trust in Tether's operation.

U.S. authorities have questioned the validity of Tether’s reserves on more than one occasion. Tether has also been scrutinized in the past by the Department of Justice over who it allows to hold and transfer its stablecoins. Meanwhile, Circle has attempted to cast itself as a more trustworthy option keen to comply with U.S. law.

"Circle over the years has tried to use the offshore illicit finance narrative against Tether in order to advantage itself domestically," according to one D.C. lobbyist.

The type of reserves stablecoin issuers are expected to hold to back their tokens will impact both what organizations can issue stablecoins and the overall supply. Generally, both the Senate and House bills seek to require issuers to maintain assets equal to the number of stablecoins it issues (1:1 basis), held in highly liquid assets like cash deposits, U.S. Treasury bills, money market funds or central bank reserve deposits.

Seemingly leaning into President Trump’s "Make America Great Again" mantra as it applies to digital assets, Circle executives have been busy of late with both Heath Tarbert and Dante Disparte writing op-eds advocating for an "America First" approach when it comes to digital asset legislation.

For now, both stablecoin bills would make it harder for foreign issuers to tap into the U.S. market.

"The STABLE Act is a little bit more buttoned down in terms of, we want foreign issuers to abide by U.S. laws in order to do business in the U.S.,” said Schulp. “The GENIUS Act is more permissive on that front. Foreign issuers can do business in the U.S., [but] they just can't issue."

Despite locking horns with the U.S. government in the past, Tether, which said in January it was moving its headquarters to El Salvador, appears interested in competing with not only Circle but also established banks like Bank of America for a share of the U.S. stablecoin market.

Recently, the issuer’s CEO, made his first trip to the U.S., speaking publicly on multiple occasions while visiting both Washington, D.C., and New York City. Soon after, Ardoino said he’s considering setting up a U.S.-based Tether subsidiary to compete in the American market.

"Right now, we’re exploring a potential new offering designed specifically for the U.S. market with a focus on institutional clients—particularly for use cases like settlement and payments infrastructure," Ardoino said. "That said, the way people and businesses use stablecoins is constantly evolving, and we’re committed to developing products that meet those shifting needs, whether that’s institutions, individuals, or emerging markets."

Disclaimer: The Block is an independent media outlet that delivers news, research, and data. As of November 2023, Foresight Ventures is a majority investor of The Block. Foresight Ventures invests in other companies in the crypto space. Crypto exchange Bitget is an anchor LP for Foresight Ventures. The Block continues to operate independently to deliver objective, impactful, and timely information about the crypto industry. Here are our current financial disclosures.

© 2025 The Block. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。