Stablecoin Regulatory Uncertainty Could Put Banks at Disadvantage, Butler Warns

Regulatory uncertainty surrounding stablecoins may disadvantage traditional banks more than crypto firms, as financial institutions wait for clearer rules while crypto companies continue expanding their operations.

Colin Butler, executive vice president of capital markets at Mega Matrix, said banks have already invested heavily in digital asset infrastructure but remain unable to deploy it fully while lawmakers debate how stablecoins should be classified. “Their general counsels are telling their boards that you cannot justify the capital expenditure until you know whether stablecoins will be treated as deposits, securities, or a distinct payment instrument,” Butler told Cointelegraph.

Several major banks have also developed significant portions of the infrastructure needed to support stablecoins. JPMorgan developed its Onyx blockchain payments network, BNY Mellon launched digital asset custody services, and Citigroup has tested tokenized deposits.

“The infrastructure spend is real, but regulatory ambiguity caps how far those investments can scale because risk and compliance functions will not greenlight full deployment without knowing how the product will be classified,” Butler explained.

In contrast, crypto firms that have operated in regulatory gray zones for years would likely continue doing so. “Banks, by contrast, cannot operate comfortably in that gray area,” Butler added.

Another concern is the growing difference between returns available on stablecoin platforms and those offered by traditional bank accounts. Exchanges often offer between 4% and 5% on stablecoin balances, Butler said, while the average United States savings account yields less than 0.5%.

Butler pointed to history showing depositors move quickly when higher yields become available, citing the shift into money market funds in the 1970s. Today, the process could happen even faster, as transferring funds from bank accounts to stablecoins takes only minutes, and the yield gap is larger.

Fabian Dori, chief investment officer at Sygnum, said the competitive gap between banks and crypto platforms is meaningful but not yet critical. He said a large-scale deposit flight is unlikely in the immediate term, as institutions still prioritize trust, regulation, and operational resilience.

“But the asymmetry can accelerate migration at the margin, especially among corporates, fintech users, and globally active clients already comfortable moving liquidity across platforms,” Dori said. “Once stablecoins are treated as productive digital cash rather than crypto trading tools, the competitive pressure on bank deposits becomes much more visible.”

Butler also warned that attempts to restrict stablecoin yield could unintentionally drive activity into less regulated areas. Under current US law, stablecoin issuers are prohibited from paying yield directly to holders. However, exchanges can still offer returns through lending programs, staking, or promotional rewards.

If lawmakers impose broader restrictions, capital could shift to alternative structures such as synthetic dollar tokens. Products like Ethena’s USDe generate yield through derivatives markets rather than traditional reserves. These mechanisms can offer returns even if regulated stablecoins cannot.

If that trend accelerates, regulators could face the opposite outcome of what they intend as more capital flows into opaque offshore structures with fewer consumer protections, according to Butler. “Capital doesn’t stop seeking returns,” he said.

See also: Bitcoin Weekly Analysis: New ATH Momentum Faces First Test at $71,500

The regulatory debate comes as stablecoins continue to grow in prominence. USD Coin’s market capitalization recently neared a record $80 billion, while the total stablecoin market has expanded significantly over the past year as institutional adoption increases.

The classification question remains central to how banks can participate in the stablecoin market. Whether stablecoins are treated as deposits would subject them to traditional banking regulations, while classification as securities would bring them under securities law. A distinct payment instrument classification could create an entirely new regulatory framework.

Banks face pressure from their boards and compliance departments to wait for clarity before fully deploying their stablecoin infrastructure. Meanwhile, crypto-native companies operate with greater flexibility, potentially giving them a first-mover advantage in capturing market share as stablecoin adoption grows among retail and institutional users seeking higher yields on their dollar-denominated holdings.