Sometimes a headline does my job for me.
This week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story titled “Banks Fought Against Stablecoins. Now They Are Considering Launching Their Own.”
The same banks that spent months lobbying against stablecoin legislation—warning regulators about deposit flight, systemic risk, and the death of community lending—are now racing to issue the very instrument they tried to snuff out of existence.
I hate to say I told you so, but I told. you so … see my August 27th article, “The Great Banking Divergence: Wall the Garden or Join the Game?” for reference.
The Receipts
Since the GENIUS Act became law, I have been writing about how that banks faced a binary choice: adapt or get disrupted. The banks that integrated stablecoin payment rails, offered custody, and built wallet services could thrive under the new regime. But I predicted most wouldn’t do it—or they’d move too late, and watch their customers migrate to faster, cheaper alternatives.
Now look at the scoreboard.
JPMorgan has reportedly discussed issuing its own stablecoin, layered on top of JPM Coin, its existing tokenized deposit product. A consortium of more than a dozen bank—Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Santander among them—is advancing a joint stablecoin venture, starting with the dollar and expanding to the euro and other G7 currencies. And 39 state banking associations, representing roughly 3,000 community banks, just unveiled the BankChain Alliance, a bank-owned blockchain platform supporting both tokenized deposits and stablecoins.
That’s not a banking industry fighting stablecoins. That’s a banking industry surrendering to them.
Why the Pivot?
Because the GENIUS Act didn’t just legalize stablecoins—it legitimized them. Once Congress codified a fully regulated, 1:1 reserved regime for digital dollars, the banks’ entire lobbying position collapsed. You can’t warn regulators about “unregulated crypto” when the coins are backed by Treasuries and audited under federal law.
And the fee model I warned about? Still on the endangered species list. Every wire fee, every ACH delay, every $35 charge to move your own money—that’s the revenue stablecoins vaporize. The banks finally did the math and realized the only thing worse than competing with stablecoins is failing to issue one and get in the game.
Conclusion. The capitulation is real, but whether banks actually follow through on the execution of stablecoins remains to be seen.
The war over whether stablecoins are coming is over and the banks lost.
The next war is over who issues the digital dollars you’ll actually use. And if history is any guide, the institutions that fought hardest against this future will be the slowest to build.
The Stablecoin Strategist delivers enforcement-focused intelligence on stablecoin regulation for operators, counsel, and institutions navigating the GENIUS Act cycle. This is analysis, not legal advice; no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading it.
Hey Carlo! Thanks for being on the leading edge of this, early and often!
I'm not sure capitulation is the word. Banks noticed deposits leaving through a door they didn't control. So what they build will look like a stablecoin and behave like a deposit product with a compliance department bolted on, which is probably fine, just not the thing anyone was excited about.