Op-Ed Argues Stablecoin Industry Should Trade Yield for Regulatory Legitimacy

In an op-ed published at Bitcoin.com, Adrian Wall and Molly Woodman make the case that the stablecoin industry should embrace restrictions on yield programs as a strategic path toward regulatory clarity and institutional adoption. The piece addresses ongoing debate around the GENIUS Act, specifically Section 16(d), which prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying yield directly to users. While banks argue that reward structures routed through exchanges and third-party platforms undermine the intent of this prohibition, many in the crypto community view tighter restrictions as a concession to incumbent financial institutions. Wall and Woodman argue the industry should reframe the issue—not as capitulation, but as a down payment on legitimacy that could unlock banking infrastructure access, institutional participation, and a realistic path to passing federal crypto legislation.

The authors contend that stablecoins were never defined by yield in the first place. Their transformative value lies in near-instant settlement, borderless transferability, 24/7 availability, programmable logic, and non-custodial digital sovereignty—none of which depend on incentive programs. By conceding on this high-profile negotiation point, they argue, the industry signals it is prepared to compete without regulatory arbitrage, making it easier for bipartisan lawmakers to advance the CLARITY Act. The op-ed frames the compromise as mutually beneficial: banks gain a regulatory perimeter aligned with their risk management practices, while stablecoin stakeholders gain expanded infrastructure access and a regulatory environment that supports growth. Both sides, the authors note, share an interest in extending the global dominance of the U.S. dollar into the digital age.

The full op-ed text is available in our publications area.