Why do banks have any say in US crypto regulations? Banks have significant influence over US crypto regulations because crypto increasingly overlaps with traditional banking activities, and banks are heavily regulated entities whose stability affects the broader financial system. The banking lobby is currently blocking the US Crypto Clarity and Market Structure Acts from passing. Powerful Lobbying Groups like the American Bankers Association (ABA), Independent Community Bankers of America, and big players (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo) spend millions lobbying Congress and regulators. They've opposed or shaped rules on stablecoin yields, non-traditional bank charters for crypto firms (e.g., pushing back on OCC approvals for entities like Circle, Ripple, or Paxos subsidiaries), and broader frameworks to maintain a "level playing field." Recent examples include petitions from thousands of banks against yield programs and criticism of crypto firms accessing Fed services without full banking oversight. Regulators like the Federal Reserve, OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), and FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) oversee banks and must ensure any crypto involvement remains "safe and sound" meaning it doesn't introduce excessive risks like liquidity issues, operational failures, money laundering, or systemic threats that could ultimately burden taxpayers (via deposit insurance or bailouts). Here's why banks "have a say" in practice: Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Banks Crypto isn't fully isolated; when banks want to offer crypto custody, stablecoin reserves, intermediary services (e.g., "riskless principal" trades), or blockchain-based products, they need approval or non-objection from their regulators. Agencies like the OCC and Fed have issued guidance on permissible activities, rescinded old restrictions (e.g., in 2025 under shifting administrations), and set risk-management standards. This gives banks direct input via comment letters, applications, and consultations their concerns about risks shape the rules for crypto integration. Systemic Risk and Deposit Competition Concerns Banks argue crypto products (especially yield-bearing stablecoins) could pull deposits away from traditional accounts, reducing lending capacity and threatening financial stability. For example, if platforms offer 4-5%+ yields on stablecoins while banks pay near-zero on savings, it risks "deposit flight." This has stalled legislation like the Clarity Act or market structure bills in the Senate, where banking lobbies push for restrictions or bank-like oversight on such features. In short, banks don't directly "write" crypto laws (that's Congress/SEC/CFTC territory), but their regulated status, economic importance, and active advocacy mean regulators and lawmakers often weigh their views heavily to protect the banking system from disruption. Crypto advocates often call this undue influence or protectionism, while banks frame it as necessary prudence. The ongoing tug-of-war (e.g., over stablecoin rewards in 2026 bills) shows this dynamic is still very much alive.