>>24191314 /lb
>If you're a pro-BTC person, XXI, ASST, MSTR, and MTPLF…
The banks are PISSING THEMSELVES.
They’ve just realized that some autistic crypto startup in a WeWork with $20 million in T‑Bills and a React front-end is about to nuke the entire $17 trillion U.S. deposit base…
…by offering 4.9% yield on a stablecoin while JPMorgan gives you 0.01% and a debit card that expires in two years.
“BUT THAT’S NOT FAIR” – every bank lobbyist ever
Now the banking system, this Godzilla made of soy, duct tape, and 11,000 physical branches, is whining to Congress like:
“This isn’t fair! If people can earn yield on dollars outside the bank… they might leave the bank!”
No shit. That’s the point. You locked everyone into a zero‑yield Ponzi for a decade while printing $7 trillion, and now you’re shocked people want out?
What’s next, are you gonna sue water for being wet?
This is a regulatory street fight between code and bureaucracy, between global liquidity that settles in five seconds and the rotting husk of Bretton Woods wearing a suit made of FDIC pamphlets.
And guess what?
The White House is hosting peace talks.
Yes.
Trump’s team just invited Circle and Coinbase to sit down with Jamie Dimon and tell him that the future of dollars may not involve Jamie Dimon.
Can you imagine the mood in that meeting?
“Hi Jamie, meet Brian from Circle. He tokenizes T-Bills with six engineers and a Discord server. He’s taking 3% of your deposits and none of your regulatory costs. Thoughts?”
The reality is that every time one of these banks says “we’re concerned about financial stability,” what they mean is:
“Please don’t let these crypto goblins disrupt our ability to harvest yield off the lower-middle class with 18% credit cards and 0% checking accounts.”
They want protection rackets codified into law.
Like “you can’t offer yield on stablecoins unless you’re a licensed bank,”
aka:
“We missed the boat, so let’s blow up the dock.”
Banks can’t compete.
Let’s model it:
A bank: 11,000 branches, 75,000 tellers, legacy core systems from 1982, and a CFO who thinks Solana is a fish.
Circle: 25 people, 100% T-Bill backing, 24/7 redemptions, yield streamed on-chain like Netflix.
Now let me make this brutally simple… Who wins?
The guys with marble lobbies or the protocol that turns dollars into yield-bearing bearer assets?
The banks are playing defense against stablecoin yield… but what happens when it clicks that stablecoins are just a transition vector to full monetary exit?
What happens when people use stablecoins to bootstrap into Bitcoin treasuries with self-custody?
You go from “5% yield off Circle’s T-Bill stack” to “30% CAGR in purchasing power in a bearer asset that can’t be diluted and lives outside the IMF death loop.”
That’s endgame stuff.
The banks are scared of USDC + USDT.
Wait until every mom in Omaha is yield farming STRC dividends from their Roth IRAs using a Lightning app.
We’re replacing the entire fiat architecture with a monetary black hole.
https://x.com/AdamBLiv/status/2016653947117682838
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/white-house-set-meet-with-banks-crypto-companies-legislation-clash-2026-01-28/
Grok's tl;dr: "White House convened banking and crypto execs (around Jan 28-29, 2026) to resolve deadlock on U.S. crypto market structure bill (building on House-passed CLARITY Act).
Core issue: Whether crypto platforms can offer yields/rewards on stablecoins — crypto says essential for growth; banks fear deposit flight (up to $500B by 2028) and instability.
Tied to 2025 GENIUS Act, which banned issuers from paying interest but left loophole for third parties.
Trump admin pushing hard for passage to boost crypto. Crypto groups welcomed talks.
Update (Jan 29, 2026): Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its version (CFTC oversight of spot markets) on party-line vote. Banking Committee version still stalled on stablecoin yields; needs bipartisan fix. White House summit aimed to help bridge gap."