The traditional financial sector is starting to get uneasy. JPMorgan Chase's Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Barnum openly stated at the recent earnings call—that stablecoins capable of paying interest are stealing the bank’s lunch.

They look like bank deposits but operate completely outside of regulation. That’s the core issue. Barnum pointed out that these yield-bearing stablecoins mimic banks on the surface, but lack the three most critical elements: deposit insurance, capital adequacy requirements, and regular regulatory oversight. The result? They appear legitimate but are "dangerously risky" in practice.

Why are they so popular? The reasons are simple. Faster payment settlements, cheaper transfer fees, and interest rates far exceeding those of traditional bank deposits. Who do you think the public will choose? This directly impacts banks’ deposit bases and profit margins, which is why industry giants are getting anxious.

Industry organizations like the American Bankers Association have already started whispering to regulators. It’s not just talk—this week’s draft revision of the "Clarity Act" hints at the direction. What’s the core? Banning digital asset service providers from paying interest "just because you hold stablecoins."

However, lawmakers aren’t going for a one-size-fits-all approach. The draft explicitly leaves room for incentives directly tied to blockchain functions. Liquidity mining, governance participation, staking validation—these are still allowed. The clear intention is to close the financial risk loophole without stifling blockchain innovation.

At its core, this is another round of contest between traditional finance and crypto innovation. JPMorgan and others want to bring stablecoins under existing regulations or restrict their growth altogether. The final legislative outcome will directly determine how stablecoins survive and what role they play in the financial system. This tug-of-war is far from over.