2026-01-08 15:34:38

Banks' panic over yield-bearing stablecoins is fundamentally not about fearing a collapse of the financial system, but about losing their monopoly on capital flow.

Looking closely at the truth behind deposit outflows makes it clear. The reason users transfer their money to stablecoins ultimately boils down to traditional banks offering too unappealing a proposition—pitifully low interest rates, complicated account opening processes, outdated service experiences. A report from a leading bank claims that stablecoins threaten local lending business? That's like a fast-food restaurant complaining that customers are going to new small eateries, even though their burgers are just not tasty.

Yield-bearing stablecoins are actually nothing mysterious. From a market perspective, they are like an upgraded version of money market funds or online banks—users seek higher returns and faster experiences, which is a perfectly normal demand. Some say this exposes regulatory loopholes? In reality, it’s just the market correcting price signals.

The core issue here is: banks are losing not just deposits, but also absolute control over capital flow. In the past, users’ money had to circulate within the banking system; now, there are more options and greater transparency. This shift in power is driven by market demand for better yields and higher transparency. The competitiveness of lending business depends on product strategies and compliance management, not simply on deposit volume. Blocking innovative financial channels will only delay change; it’s better to actively embrace this transformation.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayoffMiner

· 12h ago

Banks are just living off their old capital. Now that they've been proven wrong, they want to shift the blame to stablecoins. That's hilarious. Is it really that hard to improve yields a bit or optimize the user experience?

View OriginalReply0

DoomCanister

· 01-09 22:08

Banks are just afraid of losing their iron rice bowls, now they deserve it. --- Exactly, the interest rates from traditional banks are indeed insulting, plus you have to queue and deal with all kinds of paperwork. --- That fast-food restaurant analogy is spot on hahaha --- Yeah, previously there were no options, so people were forced to deposit in banks. Now that other choices exist, of course they will leave. --- The term "power transfer" is used well; essentially, it’s a bit of financial democratization. --- Banks are now just aggressively pushing deposits, along with all sorts of miscellaneous fees. They really should be educated. --- Higher transparency is indeed a highlight, at least you can see where the money is going. --- You can't really block it; instead of resisting, it’s better to genuinely improve the products. --- This round of stablecoins has really given banks a hard lesson. --- I just want to know which banks will truly realize and change their strategies, or if they will keep digging their own graves.

View OriginalReply0

GameFiCritic

· 01-09 20:37

That monopolistic logic of banks has long since become obsolete. Basically, it's being cleared out by the market. No matter how you look at the retention rate data, it doesn't add up. Still trying to lock in users with low-interest products? Not realistic.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter

· 01-08 16:04

banks are literally just mad they can't rug the flow anymore, ngl. this whole "systemic risk" narrative is smoke—they're terrified of losing their surveillance apparatus on every transaction. once users taste real yield and actual transparency? there's no going back to their 0.01% garbage. the death of deposit monopoly is just the beginning tbh.

Reply0

bridge_anxiety

· 01-08 16:04

Well said, banks just don't want to decentralize. Instead of complaining, why not upgrade product competitiveness? --- Deposit outflows aren't due to any financial crisis, it's just that interest rates are too trivial. Who's to blame? --- That fast-food restaurant analogy is perfect; the current awkward situation of banks is entirely self-inflicted. --- High transparency, better returns, and good experience—why should we still trust traditional banks? This is market survival of the fittest. --- Regulatory loopholes? Come on, this is called market innovation, don't assume the worst. --- Power transfer is indeed the trend; banks are still clinging to the dream of deposit scale. That's too naive. --- If you ask me, the real anxiety isn't about risk, but the loss of the thrill of losing control. --- Those who can't adapt will be eliminated; that's the market law, no room for negotiation.

View OriginalReply0

PumpStrategist

· 01-08 15:50

The bank's recent moves are quite interesting; the distribution of chips clearly signals a transfer of power. The real risk release is still to come. The bottom divergence of deposit outflows is so obvious, yet some institutions are still stubbornly clinging to their monopolistic positions—classic retail mentality at the institutional level. Blaming market innovation for poor efficiency? That logic is just incredible. From the perspective of price signal correction, it's a good angle, but be cautious about who gets cut last. The higher the transparency, the easier the risk is to expose; be mindful of probabilistic strategies. With such a large yield spread, why not wait until the day arbitrage disappears? Quite interesting—let's see who ends up as the bagholder in the end. Things that can't be blocked are better understood by their operational logic, but it's easier to say than to do. Power concessions are never voluntary.

View OriginalReply0

alpha_leaker

· 01-08 15:43

That old banking game should have gone bankrupt long ago, relying on deposit scale to survive. Now that they've been exposed, they’re shifting the blame to stablecoins. It’s hilarious.

View OriginalReply0