According to Bloomberg Business, the CEOs of three banking giants—Brian Moynihan of Bank of America, Jane Fraser of Citigroup, and Charlie Scharf of Wells Fargo—are scheduled to meet with a bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday. The meeting, organized by the Financial Services Forum, will focus on pending crypto market structure legislation that could soon face a vote. The bankers plan to voice strong opposition to specific provisions, particularly those allowing stablecoins to pay interest. They also aim to discuss how traditional banks can compete in the crypto space and address concerns about cryptocurrencies being used for illegal activities. This direct lobbying effort signals a critical moment for the legislation’s future.
Banking Battle Lines
Here’s the thing: this isn’t just a casual chat. It’s a high-stakes, last-minute lobbying blitz. The fact that these three CEOs are personally showing up tells you everything. They’re not sending their policy teams; they’re bringing the big guns because they see something in this bill that fundamentally threatens their business model. And the core of their fight? Interest on stablecoins.
Think about it. Why would banks care so much about a digital token paying a yield? Because it’s direct competition for the most basic banking product there is: a savings account. If a stablecoin issuer can offer a better, faster yield, why would anyone keep extra cash in a low-interest bank account? This gets to the heart of their power—and their profits. They’re basically trying to head off a new form of financial competition before it even gets started.
More Than Just Interest
But the interest fight is just the headline. The other points on their agenda are revealing, too. Pushing for a “level playing field” for banks in crypto is banker-speak for “give us the regulatory advantage.” They want rules that let them play in the crypto sandbox but might be too cumbersome for crypto-native startups to follow. It’s a classic incumbent move.
And then there’s the “preventing illegal activity” angle. Look, that’s a legitimate concern, but it’s also a powerful political talking point. By tying their opposition to national security and law enforcement, they’re framing the debate on their terms. It’s a smarter strategy than just saying, “This will hurt our bottom line.” So what’s the likely outcome of this meeting?
What Happens Next?
This throws a huge wrench into the legislative process. Crypto legislation has been inching forward with rare bipartisan support. Now, you have the most powerful lobby in Washington—the big banks—drawing a line in the sand. Senators who were maybe on the fence now have to weigh the wishes of their banking constituents (and donors) against the push for innovation.
My prediction? The bill gets delayed, or the stablecoin provisions get watered down significantly. The banks have too much influence to be ignored on something this core to their operations. The real question is whether crypto advocates can cut a deal that gives banks a piece of the action in exchange for letting the new tech survive. It’s going to be a messy fight, and Thursday’s meeting is just the opening salvo. Buckle up.
