As Congress debates crypto market structure legislation, one issue has emerged as especially contentious: whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay yield.

On one side, you have banks fighting to protect their traditional hold over consumer deposits that underpin much of the U.S. economy’s credit system. On the other side, crypto industry players are seeking to pass on yield, or “rewards,” to stablecoin holders.

On its face, this looks like a narrow question about one niche of the crypto economy. In reality, it goes to the heart of the U.S. financial system. The fight over yield-bearing stablecoins isn’t really about stablecoins. It is about deposits, and about who gets paid on them.

For decades, most consumer balances in the United States have earned little or nothing for their owners, but that doesn’t mean the money sat idle. Banks take deposits and put them to work: lending, investing, and earning returns. What consumers have received in exchange is safety, liquidity, and convenience (bank runs happen but are rare and are mitigated by the FDIC insurance regime). What banks receive is the bulk of the economic upside generated by those balances.

That model has been stable for a long time. Not because it is inevitable, but because consumers had no realistic alternative. With new technology, that is now changing.

A shift in expectations

The current legislative debate over stablecoin yield is more a sign of a deeper shift in how people expect money to behave. We are moving toward a world in which balances are expected to earn by default, not as a special feature reserved for sophisticated investors. Yield is becoming passive rather than opt-in. And increasingly, consumers expect to capture more of the returns generated by their own capital rather than have them absorbed upstream by intermediaries.

Once that expectation takes hold, it will be hard to confine to crypto. It will extend to any digital representation of value: tokenized cash, tokenized Treasuries, onchain bank deposits, and eventually tokenized securities. The question stops being “should stablecoins pay yield?” and becomes something more foundational: why should consumer balances earn nothing at all?

This is why the stablecoin debate feels existential to traditional banking. It is not about one new asset competing with deposits. It is about challenging the premise that deposits should, by default, be low-yield instruments whose economic value accrues primarily to institutions rather than individuals and households.

The credit objection and its limits

Banks and their allies respond with a serious argument: If consumers earn yield directly on their balances, deposits will leave the banking system, starving the economy of credit. Mortgages will become more expensive. Small-business lending will shrink. Financial stability will suffer. This concern deserves to be taken seriously. Historically, banks have been the primary channel through which household savings are transformed into credit for the real economy.

The problem is that the conclusion does not follow the premise. Allowing consumers to capture yield directly does not eliminate the need for credit. It changes how credit is funded, priced and governed. Instead of relying primarily on opaque balance-sheet transformation, credit increasingly flows through capital markets, securitized instruments, pooled lending vehicles and other explicit funding channels.

We have seen this pattern before. The growth of money-market funds, securitization, and nonbank lending prompted warnings that credit would collapse. It did not; it just reorganized.

What is happening now is another such transition. Credit does not disappear when deposits are no longer silently rehypothecated. It relocates into systems where risk and return are more clearly surfaced, where participation is more explicit and where those who bear risk capture a commensurate share of the reward. This new system doesn’t mean less credit; it means a restructuring of credit.

From institutions to infrastructure

What makes this shift durable is not any single product, but the emergence of financial infrastructure that changes default behavior. As assets become programmable and balances more portable, new mechanisms allow consumers to retain custody while still earning returns under defined rules.

Vaults are one example of this broader category, alongside automated allocation layers, yield-bearing wrappers and other still-evolving financial primitives. What these systems share is that they make explicit what has long been opaque: how capital is deployed, under what constraints and for whose benefit.

Intermediation does not disappear in this world. Rather, it moves from institutions to infrastructure, from discretionary balance sheets to rule-based systems and from hidden spreads to transparent allocation.

That is why framing this shift as “deregulation” misses the point. The question is not whether intermediation should exist, but rather who and where should benefit from it.

The real policy question

Seen clearly, the stablecoin yield debate is not a niche dispute. It is a preview of a much larger reckoning about the future of deposits. We are moving from a financial system in which consumer balances earn little, intermediaries capture most of the upside and credit creation is largely opaque, to one in which balances are expected to earn, yield flows more directly to users, and infrastructure increasingly determines how capital is deployed.

This transition can and should be shaped by regulation. Rules around risk, disclosure, consumer protection, and financial stability remain absolutely essential. But the stablecoin yield debate is best understood not as a decision about crypto, but as a decision about the future of deposits. Policymakers can try to protect the traditional model by limiting who may offer yield, or they can recognize that consumer expectations are shifting toward direct participation in the value their money generates. The former may slow change at the margins. It will not reverse it.