Brian Armstrong, the co-founder and chief executive of Coinbase, has drawn a firm line against any attempt to reopen the GENIUS Act. The law set the first federal framework for stablecoins after months of negotiation. Armstrong has framed the renewed push to revise it as a direct challenge to competition in U.S. financial markets. He has argued that the debate no longer centers on safety. Instead, it reflects a struggle over who controls access to yield in a modern payments system. Consequently, the next phase of the fight could shape how innovation survives inside U.S. regulation. Coinbase Pushes Back on Renewed Lobbying Armstrong has said Coinbase will oppose any effort to reopen the GENIUS Act. He views the law as settled policy. Besides that, he has stressed that reopening compromises legislative credibility. Lawmakers already agreed that stablecoin issuers cannot pay interest directly. However, platforms and third parties can still offer rewards. That compromise balanced innovation with oversight. Hence, changing it now risks tilting the field toward entrenched players. He has also warned that repeated lobbying campaigns weaken trust in rulemaking. According to Armstrong, reopening settled frameworks invites incumbents to delay competition through political pressure. Moreover, he has linked this pattern to broader fintech concerns. Other technology firms watch closely to see whether U.S. legislation holds after passage. Banking Economics Under Scrutiny Max Avery, a board member at Digital Ascension Group, has added economic context to the debate. He has pointed out that banks currently earn about 4.4% on reserves held at the Federal Reserve. In contrast, many savings accounts still pay roughly 0.01%. Additionally, he has argued that this spread explains resistance to stablecoin rewards. Banks typically take deposits and place them at the Federal Reserve. They earn more than 4% in interest. Consequently, customers receive minimal returns. Avery has noted that stablecoin platforms attempt to share part of this yield with users. That effort now faces political resistance. Significantly, independent research has shown no evidence of unusual deposit losses at community banks. What Lawmakers and Markets May Watch Armstrong and Avery have both urged attention to how amendments take shape. Broad bans on rewards could restrict competition without improving safety. Moreover, scrutiny may fall on who funds campaigns framed as community bank protection. In many cases, large institutions benefit most. The debate also raises questions about consistency in policymaking. Few lawmakers have pressed banks on stagnant savings rates over the past 15 years. Meanwhile, stablecoins face heightened concern over modest rewards. Consequently, the outcome may signal whether U.S. policy favors competitive payments infrastructure or protected banking margins. Over the next six months, the GENIUS Act could become a test case. Its fate may influence how innovation, yield, and consumer choice evolve in the United States.
