Eco CEO Ryne Saxe argues that Congress should not undermine a significant advancement in payment systems to shield community banks from an unproven threat.
By Ryne Sax|Edited by Cheyenne Ligon Jun 24, 2026, 2:47 p.m. 4 min readMake preferred on ShareShare this articleCopy linkX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmailMake preferred onAs Congress considers the implications of stablecoins on community banking, the banking lobby asserts that they pose a significant risk, which the evidence does not support.
This conclusion is not made lightly. Having grown up in a small town where my father spent over three decades working at a community bank, I understand that customers often choose their bank based on personal relationships rather than technological advantages.
This personal experience leads me to believe that community banks are not at risk of losing deposits to stablecoins.
Stablecoins represent a major enhancement in payment systems, allowing for faster, more programmable, and more accessible transactions than the traditional banking systems that many businesses still rely on.
As the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act progresses through Congress, following a 15-9 bipartisan vote in the Senate Banking Committee, the banking lobby is framing the discussion around a singular concern: that permitting stablecoins to flourish will lead to a depletion of deposits in local banks.
While this messaging may resonate politically, it reduces community banks to a mere talking point in a larger battle against competition. Congress should not hinder a significant advancement in payment technology based on an unsubstantiated fear.
When viewed in context, the argument of a looming threat becomes less compelling. Community banks thrive not because customers lack alternatives for moving money, but due to trust, relationships, and services that stablecoins cannot replicate. A farmer relying on a local banker for credit and loans is making a different choice than a fintech company seeking faster transaction methods.
Community banks hold around 10% of the total banking assets in the U.S. Yet, they account for over one-third of small business loans and nearly two-thirds of agricultural loans nationwide, indicating that this discussion should extend beyond just deposits.
The banking lobby treats stablecoin transactions as if every dollar that moves through them equates to a dollar exiting the banking system, which misrepresents market dynamics. Stablecoin usage still depends on banks, regulated issuers, custodians, payment processors, and access to fiat currencies. The real question is not whether banks will vanish, but which institutions will adapt swiftly enough to engage in the evolving landscape of financial transactions.
Stablecoins have entered the mainstream, with their total supply surpassing $300 billion. USDT₮, the largest stablecoin, even temporarily overtook Ethereum in market cap, making it the second-largest digital asset after Bitcoin. Banks should be paying attention.
However, vigilance should not translate into lobbying Congress to impede market progress.
Stablecoins introduce new competition in payments, settlements, liquidity, and customer relations, which may challenge banks. This is necessary for financial innovation; progress doesn’t occur when incumbents feel secure.
Nonetheless, this does not imply that stablecoins pose a systemic risk to community banking.
A historical parallel exists: In the past decade, fintech firms have integrated banking features into various applications, many in collaboration with traditional banks. This shift transformed customer interactions with financial services, fostered competition, and compelled banks to modernize, yet community banking has remained intact.
Digital banking platforms like PayPal and Stripe have gained substantial user bases, yet banks have generally regarded fintech not as a threat but as an opportunity to enhance their services through partnerships. For instance, SoFi, the largest publicly traded fintech bank, reported $37.5 billion in deposits in Q4 2025, which is less than 0.2% of the U.S. banking sector's $20 trillion total deposits. If fintech hasn’t been a threat, why treat stablecoins differently?
Stablecoins deserve to be seen in a similar light; they are not an impending bank run but rather a new layer for payments and settlements.
Current primary use cases focus on enhancing settlement speed, facilitating cross-border transactions, treasury management, programmable payments, and ensuring liquidity around the clock. These are expanding markets, but they do not equate to rural customers abandoning their trusted banks.
This distinction should inform Congress as the Clarity Act advances.
The aim should be to safeguard consumers and markets, not to shield banks from every emerging competitor. Community banks warrant a serious policy discourse but should not be used to justify resistance against competition.
Regulatory measures should enhance market safety and clarify operational guidelines without preemptively choosing which institutions deserve protection from competition.
Stablecoins are not a threat to community banks. However, the financial landscape is evolving, and Congress should not allow exaggerated fears to dictate who can be part of this future during the passage of the Clarity Act.
Clarity ActNote: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.
Latest Crypto News- 1Bitcoin just broke below the floor of its famous Rainbow Chart into the ‘BTC is dead’ zone14 minutes ago
- 2Gold, silver and bitcoin tumble as debasement trade unwinds1 hour ago
- 3Bitcoin could fall to $55,000 before finding a bottom, 10x Research says1 hour ago
- 4CoinDesk 20 performance update: Aave (AAVE) gains 5.9% as index moves higher 1 hour ago
- 5CZ, Binance founder, wants to clear up 'misunderstandings' about who he is 2 hours ago
- 6Aave could soar to $3,500 by 2030 on DeFi revival, says StanChart2 hours ago
- 7This forgotten coin could surprise everyone before its next halving3 hours ago
- 8Bitcoin clings to $62,500 as bears tighten grip on crypto market3 hours ago
- 9YZi Labs ends proxy war with BNB treasury company CEA Industries4 hours ago
- 10Cboe revives S&P 500 binary options, chasing a market popularized by Polymarket, Kalshi4 hours ago
CEX Volumes Drop to Lowest Since September 2024 as RWA Perps Hit Record High
CEX Volumes Drop to Lowest Since September 2024 as RWA Perps Hit Record High
In May, combined exchange volumes fell 3.45% to $4.41T; the lowest since September 2024. RWA perpetual futures volumes rose 10.4% against the trend, hitting a new all-time high.
By CoinDesk ResearchJun 15, 2026In May, combined exchange volumes fell 3.45% to $4.41T; the lowest since September 2024. RWA perpetual futures volumes rose 10.4% against the trend, hitting a new all-time high.
Why it matters:
In May, combined exchange volumes fell 3.45% to $4.41T; the lowest since September 2024. RWA perpetual futures volumes rose 10.4% against the trend, hitting a new all-time high.
View Full ReportMore From Opinion