Bankers vs Crypto enthusiasts?

[BitGoba]

We know that crypto goes opposite of what a bank is.

Bitcoin not crypto
Crypto is similar to the banking system. It's a centralized system controlled by a small group of people who decide on consensus and management. Unlike the Rothschilds and Rockefellers in traditional banking, in crypto you have  Vitalik Buterin, Joe Lubin, and other crypto founders and insiders. Crypto is like the fiat bank system.

Unstable coins are just IOUs, from central bankers.Through crypto, the banksters will continue to rob you via inflation. If you have $10,000 and hold onto it until this time next year, it will have significantly less purchasing power , that's a fact.

For example, if the annual inflation rate is 8%, in just one year the real value of your money drops to about $9,200. In other words, you ‘lose’ $800 in value, even though you still technically have the same $10,000. After 5 years, that $10,000 would be worth only around $6,800 in today’s terms. Inflation silently eats away more than 30% of your wealth.

Crypto, is not the solution  it’s just a new version of the fiat system, controlled by a small group of insiders like Vitalik Buterin, Joe Lubin, and others

Only Bitcoin truly protects you. There's no money printing, no inflation, and no hidden theft.

[ThemePen]

Isn't that beef mostly between two types of banks?

Stablecoin issuers imo are very close to banks in the way they're working. So basically we have an "old style bank" sector who wants to preserve their privileges and a "new style bank" sector wanting to get a bigger share.

"Crypto" isn't Bitcoin. Stablecoins are actually very much the opposite of Bitcoin, it's only a blockchain-based PayPal.

So I'm not really concerned about that particular issue. I think however that from customer protection perspective, it's not bad that regulations for stablecoins should be quite strict, and if there is a loophole increasing the risk for stablecoin holders dramatically, it should be closed.

Conflict is not between banks and crypto, and it is fight between old and new types of financial institutions. Stablecoins also behave even like banks except that they employ different technology and therefore emerging competitors of banks. And you are right one stablecoins have nothing in common with Bitcoin as they are more similar to digital PayPal. Due to this reason, stablecoins should be regulated by rigid policies to ensure that customers do not face significant risks. Most important element of the debate is this focus of customer protection.

[Iranus]

In terms of the interest of the system that serves the government, the government doesn't need to promote stablecoins. Regulate, limit, provide oversight? Yes.

But to promote stablecoins takes away power from banks, which in reality are the biggest factor that keeps governments alive and the capitlistic system supporting them as a whole running.

So if governments take away from the profits and control of banks by allowing non-bank tools to fulfill everyday tasks such as payments and money transfers, a core function of banking for the vast majority of people goes away. With a government endorsed stablecoin you could literally do without banks at all. It's likely that in this instance we'll see the government backing down in its crypto support because banks are a foundational issue for them so everything pro-crypto has to benefit the banks also.

The US government's purpose in passing the Genius Act is to strengthen the dominance of the US dollar, which is showing signs of decline as the de-dollarization process is taking place quite rapidly. Therefore, promoting stablecoins pegged to the USD is an extremely wise decision by the US and necessary to maintain USD dominance.

As for the bank's interests being affected, this is not too difficult to solve. Because after all, stablecoin issuers also operate under the control of governments and the Fed. Competition between stablecoin issuers and commercial banks is just competition between businesses. It would not affect the government's tax revenue or the power of the Fed.

[Kryss191]

This feels less like "banks vs. crypto" and more like a power negotiation over who gets to own the rails of future finance. Regulators are stuck in the middle: push too hard, and they stifle innovation; go too soft, and you risk instability. Both sides have valid points. My guess is we end up with hybrid models where banks and crypto firms both play, but under slightly different guardrails.