Traditional Finance and Digital Assets: The Stablecoin Regulatory Dilemma The debate surrounding stablecoin regulation has once again become a hot topic in the United States. According to a Chosun Ilbo report on March 19, 2026, former U.S. President Donald Trump urged banks to expedite a stablecoin agreement, revealing new complexities in the tension between the market and regulatory authorities. Amidst the rapid growth of digital assets, the clash and harmonization between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency industry are expected to remain a central theme in the global financial market for the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen whether the intervention of a political heavyweight like former President Trump can break the deadlock in regulatory discussions. The core issue currently at stake is the 'Clarity Act,' which is pending in the U.S. Congress. This bill, aimed at establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets as a whole, passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. According to the Chosun Ilbo report, the biggest hurdle is the issue of 'interest' payments for stablecoins. The 'GENIUS Act,' enacted last year, explicitly states that companies issuing stablecoins, such as Tether and Circle, should not pay interest. This can be seen as an attempt to define the nature of stablecoins within the traditional financial ecosystem from a regulatory perspective. Stablecoins are recognized as important intermediaries connecting the traditional financial system and the cryptocurrency market. Designed to maintain a fixed value, these digital assets provide a stable means for asset storage, remittances, and payments for businesses and individuals. However, the interest payment issue is not a simple matter. If interest payments are allowed, stablecoins would transcend being mere stores of value and acquire characteristics similar to traditional deposit products. This could lead to intensified competition with existing financial institutions. The banking industry is wary of the rapid growth of digital assets, which they cannot control, and maintains that stablecoins are difficult to adopt without a concrete regulatory framework. According to the Chosun Ilbo report, while the banking sector demands a clear regulatory framework for the introduction and utilization of stablecoins, the failure to reach an agreement on key issues like interest payments has delayed the bill's passage. This clearly illustrates the complex interests and regulatory challenges stablecoins face in their integration into the traditional financial system. Former President Trump's remarks are highly likely to influence this regulatory uncertainty. His statements can be interpreted as a message urging regulatory authorities and Congress to reach a swift agreement, which is expected to significantly impact the future direction of the stablecoin market. Experts point out that while these remarks could be a political strategy, they also express concern that the stagnation in market regulation could delay the development of related technologies and industries. The statements of political heavyweights have a significant impact on financial markets, especially the cryptocurrency market, where the regulatory environment is crucial. Former President Trump's call for a stablecoin agreement demonstrates high political interest in stablecoin regulation and could act as pressure to resolve market uncertainty. The deadlock of the Clarity Act and the specific issue of interest payments highlight the core of the regulatory debate, enabling predictions about future policy changes. Clarity Act and the Stablecoin Interest Payment Controversy However, it is difficult to say that these discussions will necessarily lead to positive outcomes. Some experts warn that former President Trump's remarks could inadvertently create unnecessary expectations among market participants. Furthermore, some emphasize that the fundamental goal of stablecoin regulation is not merely to foster industry growth but to maintain a sound market order. Regulatory authorities must aim for broader financial stability beyond just market demands. The background to the GENIUS Act prohibiting stablecoin issuers from paying interest lies in concerns about the stability of the financial system. If stablecoin issuers were to pay interest, they would effectively perform functions similar to banks. However, unlike banks, stablecoin issuers are not subject to deposit insurance or strict capital regulations. This raises concerns about increasing systemic risk. Considering that large stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle manage tens of billions of dollars in assets, their stability could affect the entire financial system. The Clarity Act and the GENIUS Act are related yet address different aspects. While the GENIUS Act specifies the concrete conditions for stablecoin issuance, the Clarity Act presents a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets as a whole. A clear regu
Related Articles