BOA CEO Panics: $6 Trillion Could Flee U.S. Banks as Stablecoins Threaten Old Finance
BOA CEO Issues Stark Stablecoin Warning as Senate Debates Yield Restrictions
The future of American banking may be approaching a defining crossroads. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan has delivered a blunt warning to lawmakers and investors alike: if interest-bearing stablecoins are allowed to grow unchecked, as much as $6 trillion in deposits could migrate out of traditional banks and into digital assets.
The warning came during Bank of America’s earnings call on January 15, 2026, just as the U.S. Senate intensifies debate over sweeping crypto legislation that could fundamentally alter how stablecoins operate. At the heart of the controversy is whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer passive yield, a feature that critics say threatens the core mechanics of the U.S. banking system.
Moynihan’s message was clear. This is not simply a debate about crypto innovation. It is a battle over deposits, lending, and the future structure of financial power in the United States.
Why Bank of America Is Sounding the Alarm
According to Moynihan, the risk is not hypothetical. If stablecoins are permitted to pay competitive interest, they could attract a massive share of U.S. household and corporate cash balances. Bank of America estimates that roughly 35 percent of all U.S. bank deposits, equivalent to nearly $6 trillion, could eventually shift to digital stablecoins.
 |
| Source: X(formerly Twitter) |
That kind of movement would represent one of the largest structural changes in modern financial history.
Traditional banks rely on deposits to fund mortgages, small business loans, auto financing, and consumer credit. When deposits leave the system, banks must turn to more expensive wholesale funding sources, which in turn raises borrowing costs for everyday Americans.
Moynihan framed the issue in stark terms. Once interest-bearing stablecoins become widely accepted, the process may be impossible to reverse.
“The genie would be out of the bottle,” he warned, emphasizing that banks cannot simply replace lost deposits without passing higher costs onto borrowers.
Stablecoins vs. Banks: A Fundamental Clash
At the center of the BOA CEO’s warning is the growing appeal of stablecoins that offer yield. Unlike bank savings accounts, which often pay modest interest, many stablecoin issuers generate returns by holding reserves in U.S. Treasuries or similar instruments and sharing part of that yield with users.
From a consumer’s perspective, the proposition is simple. Stablecoins offer faster settlement, blockchain-based transparency, and potentially higher returns, all without the perceived friction of traditional banking.
From a bank’s perspective, however, this model disrupts the deposit-loan cycle that underpins credit creation in the real economy.
Moynihan argued that stablecoin reserves are largely parked in government securities rather than recycled into local lending. If deposits migrate en masse, banks would lose their ability to efficiently fund housing, infrastructure, and business expansion.
The Senate’s High-Stakes Decision on Yield
Moynihan’s comments arrive as the Senate Banking Committee debates one of the most contentious elements of the proposed 2026 crypto market structure bill: whether stablecoins should be banned from offering passive yield.
Under the current draft, stablecoin issuers would be prohibited from paying interest simply for holding tokens. However, activity-based rewards such as staking incentives, liquidity provision rewards, or governance participation would still be allowed.
Supporters of the restriction argue that it preserves financial stability by preventing stablecoins from directly competing with bank deposits. Critics see it as regulatory protectionism designed to shield traditional banks from competition.
This debate has already fractured the crypto industry. Some major firms support moving forward with the bill, while others argue that banning yield undermines innovation and consumer choice.
Coinbase Pushes Back as Industry Splits
The controversy escalated earlier this week when Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong withdrew his support for the legislation, citing what he described as structural flaws.
Armstrong argued that banning stablecoin yield would effectively block a major consumer benefit while reinforcing the dominance of large banks. He warned that such restrictions could drive innovation offshore, pushing users toward foreign platforms and digital currencies beyond U.S. oversight.
According to Armstrong, limiting yield does not eliminate demand for returns. It merely changes where users seek them.
This disagreement has created a rare public divide between Wall Street banking leaders and crypto-native firms, each claiming to defend consumers while advancing very different visions of the future.
Could Stablecoins Become a National Security Issue?
The debate has expanded beyond finance into geopolitics and national security.
Crypto advocacy groups warn that if the U.S. imposes overly restrictive rules on stablecoins, global users may migrate toward foreign central bank digital currencies or privately issued stablecoins outside American jurisdiction.
They argue that weakening the competitiveness of dollar-backed stablecoins could reduce the global influence of the U.S. dollar at a time when digital settlement infrastructure is becoming increasingly strategic.
While Moynihan focused primarily on domestic banking stability, critics counter that protecting banks at the expense of innovation may ultimately weaken America’s financial leadership.
A Banking System Under Pressure
The timing of this debate is especially sensitive. U.S. banks are already navigating tighter margins, higher capital requirements, and a shifting interest rate environment.
A sudden, large-scale loss of deposits could amplify stress across the financial system, particularly for regional and community banks that rely heavily on local deposits to fund lending.
Moynihan emphasized that the issue is not opposition to blockchain technology itself. Bank of America has explored tokenization, digital payments, and blockchain settlement in controlled environments.
The concern, he argued, lies in allowing a parallel deposit system to grow without the same regulatory responsibilities imposed on banks, such as capital buffers, liquidity requirements, and deposit insurance.
What Happens Next
For now, the Senate has not reached a final decision. The proposed market structure bill remains under negotiation, and lawmakers face intense pressure from both banking institutions and the crypto industry.
If passive yield is banned, stablecoin growth in the U.S. may slow, potentially preserving the traditional banking model but risking innovation flight.
If yield is allowed, banks may face unprecedented competition for deposits, forcing a reevaluation of savings rates, lending models, and financial products.
Either outcome marks a turning point.
The Bigger Picture
The BOA CEO stablecoin warning highlights a deeper truth. The battle over stablecoin yield is not just about crypto. It is about who controls money in a digital age.
Is the future dominated by regulated banks adapting to blockchain technology, or by decentralized financial systems that bypass traditional intermediaries?
As Moynihan cautioned, decisions made in Washington over the coming months could reshape American finance for decades.
For consumers, investors, and policymakers alike, the stakes have rarely been higher.
hokanews.com – Not Just Crypto News. It’s Crypto Culture.