After the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finalised its rules on stablecoin rewards, U.S. banks and the cryptocurrency industry offered sharply contrasting reactions.

According to blockchain news outlet Cryptopolitan on Oct. 21 local time, bank groups pushed back against the OCC's final implementing rules on stablecoins, saying third-party rewards could draw money out of bank deposits and weaken lending capacity. The cryptocurrency industry, by contrast, assessed the decision as closer to Congress' original intent.

The dispute centres on how far rewards offered through exchanges or intermediaries are allowed under the GENIUS Act, which bans stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to users. The OCC said it had reviewed an approach in a proposed rule in February that would, in principle, treat some reward structures as illegal. In the final version, it removed that premise and decided to assess matters on a case-by-case basis. It kept authority to act against attempts to circumvent the reward ban. The effective date is Jan. 18, 2027.

The American Bankers Association criticised the change, saying it runs counter to Congress' legislative intent. ABA Chief Executive Rob Nichols (롭 니컬스) argued that regulators had permitted crypto firms to offer rewards and that harm could already occur even before deposit outflows show up in the data. The ABA also flagged that such practices could blur the nature of stablecoins and traditional bank deposits.

The Bank Policy Institute also objected. Paige Pidano Paridon (페이지 피다노 패리던), a BPI executive, criticised the decision, saying it "replaced clarity with ambiguity". Independent Community Bankers of America Chief Executive Rebecca Romero Rainey (레베카 로메로 레이니) also called for additional steps to protect community banks' lending function.

The cryptocurrency industry, by contrast, viewed the final rules as more realistic. Lindsey Fraser (린지 프레이저), head of policy at the Blockchain Association, said "this decision moved closer to what Congress wanted". She said the move "could open a path to expanding dollar-pegged payments under the federal supervisory framework".

Some said the rules did not remove regulatory uncertainty. TD Cowen's Jaret Seiberg (재릿 세이버그) said courts or the next set of regulators could later reach different interpretations over which reward structures are permitted. With the final rules shifting from a uniform ban to case-by-case judgments, differences in interpretation could continue in practice.

Forecasts also diverged sharply. The ICBA estimated that the spread of stablecoins could cut community bank lending by at least 850 billion dollars. It said the figure was not an actual confirmed loss but a projection. The White House Council of Economic Advisers, in an April 2026 study, said a ban on stablecoin yields would increase lending by only 2.1 billion dollars and impose welfare costs of 800 million dollars. The two estimates reflect different assumptions and effects.

An analysis by the Bank for International Settlements also added fuel to the debate. The BIS said stablecoins and bank deposits compete for funds to some extent, but it did not prove that either side causes lending losses on the scale presented in the original sources.

The dispute does not remain confined to the United States. Circle Chief Executive Jeremy Allaire (제러미 알레어) said the company is pushing business expansion into about 40 emerging markets. He said demand for dollar-pegged stablecoins is rising in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. As a result, U.S. reward rules could also affect how banks and digital payments operators compete for customers in global markets.