CoinTalk
A total of 2551 cryptocurrency questions
Share Your Thoughts with BYDFi
Trending
Banks’ Stablecoin Fears Are Unsubstantiated Myths, Says Professor
Banks’ Stablecoin Fears Are Built on Myths, Says Columbia Professor
As US lawmakers prepare to move forward with long-awaited crypto market structure legislation, a fierce battle is unfolding behind the scenes — and stablecoins have become the unexpected flashpoint. According to a Columbia Business School professor, the loudest objections coming from the banking sector are not based on evidence, but on fear of losing profits.
Omid Malekan, an adjunct professor at Columbia and a well-known crypto educator, argues that much of the resistance to stablecoin yield-sharing is rooted in misinformation deliberately pushed to protect the traditional banking model. In a recent post on X, Malekan expressed frustration that progress on crypto legislation is being slowed by what he described as unsubstantiated myths surrounding stablecoin economics.
The Real Fight: Who Controls Stablecoin Yield?
At the heart of the debate lies a simple but powerful question: who should benefit from the interest generated by stablecoin reserves?
Stablecoin issuers typically hold reserves in US Treasury bills and bank deposits, which generate yield. Banks and their lobbyists argue that allowing issuers or platforms to share this yield with users creates a dangerous loophole. Their fear is that consumers, attracted by passive returns of around 5%, could pull billions of dollars out of traditional savings accounts, triggering a so-called deposit flight.
Malekan rejects this argument outright, calling it a convenient narrative designed to shield banks from competition rather than protect the financial system.
Why Stablecoins Don’t Drain Bank Deposits
One of the most persistent claims from the banking industry is that stablecoin adoption will inevitably shrink bank deposits. Malekan says this assumption ignores how the stablecoin market actually works.
Much of the demand for stablecoins comes from outside the United States. When foreign users purchase dollar-backed stablecoins, issuers are required to place reserves into US-based assets, including Treasury bills and bank deposits. Rather than draining the system, this process can inject new capital into American banks and government debt markets.
From this perspective, stablecoins are not a threat to deposits but a mechanism that can expand financial activity across borders.
Competition Isn’t the Problem — Profits Are
Another key myth, according to Malekan, is that stablecoins will cripple bank lending. In reality, stablecoins do not prevent banks from issuing loans. What they do is challenge banks’ ability to pay near-zero interest while earning substantial returns elsewhere.
Today, the average US savings account yields just over half a percent. If banks fear losing customers to yield-bearing stablecoins, Malekan argues, the solution is straightforward: pay savers more. Stablecoins introduce competition, not collapse.
Banks Are No Longer the Main Credit Engine
The argument that stablecoins could choke off credit also ignores a structural shift in the US financial system. Banks now provide only about one-fifth of total credit in the economy. The majority comes from non-bank sources such as money market funds, private credit firms, and capital markets.
These sectors could actually benefit from stablecoin adoption through faster settlement, lower transaction costs, and potentially reduced Treasury yields. Rather than weakening the system, stablecoins may enhance its efficiency.
Community Banks Aren’t the Real Victims
Much of the lobbying effort frames community and regional banks as the most vulnerable players. Malekan calls this another misleading narrative.
According to him, large money-center banks have far more to lose if stablecoins disrupt the status quo. Community banks are often used as a shield in public messaging, while the real objective is protecting the outsized profits of the largest financial institutions.
He describes the situation as an uncomfortable alliance between big banks defending their margins and certain crypto startups pitching services to smaller banks under the guise of protection.
Savers Matter Too — Not Just Borrowers
Public policy discussions often focus heavily on borrowers, but Malekan insists that savers deserve equal attention. Preventing stablecoin issuers from sharing yield effectively forces consumers to subsidize bank profits by accepting minimal returns on their money.
A healthy economy depends on both savers and borrowers. Blocking innovation that benefits savers simply to preserve existing profit structures undermines that balance.
Congress Faces a Choice: Consumers or Corporations
Malekan concludes with a clear message to lawmakers. The stablecoin yield debate should not be about preserving legacy advantages but about encouraging innovation and serving consumers.
He warns that many of the claims circulating in Washington lack empirical support and urges Congress to remain focused on progress rather than pressure from powerful lobbies.
Growing Pushback Against Banking Influence
The debate has also drawn reactions from legal and political figures. Lawyer and Senate candidate John Deaton recently reminded voters that senators are facing intense pressure from banking interests to prevent platforms like Coinbase from offering stablecoin rewards.
Deaton’s message was blunt: banks and career politicians do not necessarily act in the public’s best interest. He pointed out that restrictions on stablecoin yields could stifle innovation and limit consumer choice.
Coinbase has reportedly gone as far as warning that it may withdraw support for the CLARITY Act if lawmakers impose restrictions on stablecoin rewards beyond basic disclosure requirements — a sign of how high the stakes have become.
A Defining Moment for Crypto Regulation
As the market structure bill heads toward markup, the stablecoin yield issue may determine whether the US embraces a more competitive, consumer-focused financial system or reinforces the dominance of traditional banks.
2026-01-19 · 17 days ago0 095Crypto YouTube View Counts Sink to 2021 Levels, Decline Not Just Driven by X
Crypto YouTube Viewership Hits Multi-Year Lows as Retail Interest Fades
Crypto-related content on YouTube has entered one of its quietest periods in years, with viewership dropping to levels not seen since the early days of 2021. The sharp decline, observed over the past three months, is being widely interpreted as a clear signal of weakening retail participation and prolonged bear market sentiment across the digital asset space.
This slowdown is not limited to a single platform or algorithm change. Instead, it reflects a broader shift in how audiences interact with crypto media, suggesting deeper fatigue among retail investors and a structural change in market participation.
A Cross-Platform Decline, Not a YouTube Problem
Recent data shared by ITC Crypto founder Benjamin Cowen shows a steady collapse in crypto-related views across major YouTube channels when measured using a 30-day moving average. According to Cowen, the downturn mirrors a similar drop in engagement on X, making it clear that the issue extends beyond YouTube’s recommendation system.
Other creators echoed this view, noting that engagement has been sliding consistently since October. The pattern indicates that crypto social interest has not merely dipped but has entered territory typically associated with full bear market conditions.
Several analysts argue that, from a social engagement perspective, crypto never truly recovered its 2021 momentum. Despite price rallies in later years, audience attention and enthusiasm failed to return to previous highs, leaving content creators struggling to regain lost visibility.
Why Retail Investors Are Pulling Back
One of the most cited reasons behind the decline is retail exhaustion. Many long-term content creators have admitted that, while their channels continued to grow after 2021, the level of attention and excitement has never come close to what was seen during the previous bull cycle.
The constant wave of speculative altcoins, failed narratives, and pump-and-dump schemes has taken a toll on retail confidence. For many viewers, crypto content has become associated with losses rather than opportunity, leading them to disengage entirely rather than continue chasing uncertain trends.
This fatigue has been amplified by the growing perception that markets are no longer driven by everyday investors. Instead, institutional capital appears to be setting the pace, leaving retail participants feeling sidelined and disempowered.
Institutions Take the Lead as Retail Steps Aside
The collapse in crypto content viewership reinforces a broader theme of the current market cycle: institutions are increasingly dominant. Large players are deploying capital quietly, focusing on infrastructure, regulation-compliant products, and long-term positioning rather than hype-driven narratives.
Meanwhile, retail investors have either reduced their exposure or shifted their attention elsewhere. Some have turned toward macroeconomic assets such as precious metals, while others are simply waiting on the sidelines for clearer opportunities.
This shift explains why price action alone has failed to revive social interest. Without widespread retail participation, even significant market movements struggle to generate the same level of online engagement seen in previous cycles.
A Tough Year for Crypto Performance
Market performance has also played a role in dampening enthusiasm. Bitcoin’s performance over the past year has disappointed many retail investors, especially when compared to alternative assets. In contrast, commodities such as gold, silver, palladium, and even niche metals have outperformed, attracting capital that might otherwise have flowed into crypto.
For content consumers, returns matter more than narratives. As some observers have pointed out, investors are no longer interested in stories about potential future gains; they want tangible results. When those results fail to materialize, attention naturally shifts away.
Signs of Stabilization Beneath the Surface
Despite the gloomy outlook for crypto content creators, not all indicators are negative. On-chain analytics platforms have noted a gradual improvement in social sentiment surrounding Bitcoin. While overall engagement remains low, the tone of discussion has become less pessimistic, suggesting that the worst phase of capitulation may be passing.
Analysts emphasize that key psychological price levels will play an important role in determining whether retail confidence can recover. Holding above critical thresholds could help stabilize sentiment, even if viewership does not immediately rebound.
Ethereum, however, presents a more fragmented picture. Discussions around ETH remain scattered, with no clear narrative dominating social platforms. This lack of consensus reflects broader uncertainty about the asset’s near-term direction.
What the Decline Really Means for Crypto Media
The collapse in YouTube views does not necessarily signal the end of crypto interest but rather a transition into a quieter, more selective phase. Audiences are becoming more cautious, more experienced, and far less willing to engage with speculative hype.
For creators, this period may require a shift in strategy toward deeper analysis, macro context, and long-term education rather than short-term predictions. For the market itself, the absence of retail noise could eventually lay the groundwork for a more sustainable recovery.
Until then, crypto YouTube remains a reflection of a market still searching for renewed confidence, fresh narratives, and a reason for retail investors to return.
Ready to Take Control of Your Crypto Journey? Start Trading Safely on BYDFi
2026-01-15 · 21 days ago0 095Bitcoin Searches and Social Buzz Fell in 2025 Despite Record Highs
Bitcoin Quietly Climbs While Online Buzz Fades in 2025
Bitcoin spent 2025 rewriting price history, yet something unusual happened beneath the surface. Despite breaking multiple all-time highs and surviving one of the most violent market crashes in recent memory, public attention toward Bitcoin weakened instead of growing. Search trends declined, social media mentions dropped, and online enthusiasm cooled, creating a striking disconnect between price action and public interest.
This paradox reveals a deeper shift in how the market interacts with Bitcoin, suggesting that maturity, not hype, may now be driving the world’s largest cryptocurrency.
Search Interest Slows After Post-Election Surge
Global Google Trends data paints a clear picture. Interest in the keyword Bitcoin surged dramatically following the U.S. presidential election in November 2024, when Donald Trump’s victory reignited speculation around crypto-friendly policies. However, that spike proved short-lived. As 2025 progressed, search volumes steadily declined, interrupted only by two modest upticks during the second half of the year.
This decline occurred even as Bitcoin moved through historic milestones. Prices climbed to new records, volatility dominated headlines, and institutional involvement deepened. Yet retail curiosity, as measured by search behavior, failed to keep pace.
Social Media Mentions Drop by Nearly a Third
The slowdown wasn’t limited to search engines. Data shared by Bitcoin cypherpunk Jameson Lopp revealed a significant decline in social media discussion. Posts on X containing the word Bitcoin fell by roughly 32% in 2025 compared to the previous year, totaling around 96 million mentions.
Activity peaked early in the year during moments of political and symbolic importance. The inauguration of President Trump, the pardon of Ross Ulbricht, and the announcement of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve all triggered temporary spikes in discussion. Beyond these moments, engagement gradually faded, even as Bitcoin touched price levels that once would have dominated global headlines.
Record Prices Failed to Reignite the Crowd
One of the most surprising aspects of 2025 was how little noise accompanied Bitcoin’s most dramatic price movements. When BTC surged past $120,000 and later printed a new all-time high above $126,000, social chatter remained subdued. Even Bitcoin Pizza Day, traditionally a major cultural milestone for the community, produced only a modest increase in online discussion.
This muted response became even more apparent during October. As a bullish narrative gained traction and Bitcoin reached fresh highs, social activity stayed unusually low. Then came the crash. On October 10, more than $19 billion in leveraged crypto positions were wiped out in a single event, yet online engagement failed to explode as it might have in earlier cycles.
Influential Bitcoin Voices Never Went Silent
While overall chatter declined, prominent Bitcoin advocates remained highly active. Media intelligence data shows that Strategy chairman Michael Saylor published over 1,200 Bitcoin-related posts during the year, the vast majority carrying positive or neutral sentiment. His consistent messaging reflected long-term conviction rather than short-term speculation.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back was even more prolific, posting tens of thousands of times about Bitcoin. His activity spiked during periods of heightened fear, including moments when concerns over quantum computing threats dominated the narrative. Meanwhile, Human Rights Foundation strategist Alex Gladstein focused heavily on Bitcoin’s role in personal freedom and financial sovereignty, keeping ideological discussions alive even as broader interest waned.
Bearish Sentiment Persists Into 2026
As 2026 began, sentiment indicators continued to show caution. Analytics from Santiment revealed that social commentary surrounding Bitcoin grew increasingly bearish in mid-January, even as prices rallied sharply during the same period. This divergence highlighted a market driven more by capital flows than public optimism.
The Crypto Fear & Greed Index echoed this mood, spending much of early 2026 in fear-dominated territory. Yet beneath the pessimism, subtle signs of recovery began to form. Data from CryptoQuant showed the short-term Fear & Greed moving average crossing above the longer-term average, a signal often associated with improving confidence and potential price strength.
What This Shift Means for Traders and Investors
The decline in hype does not necessarily signal weakness. Instead, it may point to a more mature Bitcoin market, one less reliant on viral excitement and more influenced by fundamentals, liquidity, and institutional strategy. For traders, this environment rewards discipline, risk management, and access to advanced tools rather than emotional decision-making.
Platforms like BYDFi have become increasingly relevant in this new phase. As sentiment fluctuates and volatility remains high, traders are turning to exchanges that offer deep liquidity, flexible trading products, and robust risk controls. BYDFi’s growing presence among global crypto traders reflects this shift toward professionalism and strategic positioning rather than hype-driven speculation.
A Quieter Bitcoin, But a Stronger One
Bitcoin’s journey through 2025 and into 2026 suggests that attention is no longer the primary fuel behind price movement. The crowd may be quieter, searches fewer, and timelines less crowded, but the network continues to grow, evolve, and attract serious capital.
2026-01-26 · 10 days ago0 094
Popular Questions
How to Use Bappam TV to Watch Telugu, Tamil, and Hindi Movies?
How to Withdraw Money from Binance to a Bank Account in the UAE?
ISO 20022 Coins: What They Are, Which Cryptos Qualify, and Why It Matters for Global Finance
Bitcoin Dominance Chart: Your Guide to Crypto Market Trends in 2025
The Best DeFi Yield Farming Aggregators: A Trader's Guide