Should stablecoin holders get some of the reserve yield?

[kaankaya]

basically, issuers wouldn’t be able to pay interest just because you’re holding the stablecoin. okay, i get it. it’s meant to be money, not some savings product.

but at the same time, the reserves behind it can still earn yield. so you hold $1, later you get your $1 back, and someone earned money on that reserve in between.idk, feels fair to at least ask who that extra yield should go to.

not saying holders should get all of it btw. but maybe some of it? so lets think - would you rather keep stablecoins super simple at $1 = $1, or get a small share of the reserve income?

thoughts based on this read https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-29/html/2026-19860-2.htm

[Nwada001]

Is it even advisable for someone to be holding stablecoin in their wallet? It’s just better to hold cash instead of holding USDT; they are making profit from lending the backed-up USD, which is their business, and the real idea behind their creation of stablecoin. And while we are seeing more every day, they really can’t keep up with paying holders; it’s going to destroy the system.

[PostQuantumBTC]

Is it even advisable for someone to be holding stablecoin in their wallet? It’s just better to hold cash instead of holding USDT; they are making profit from lending the backed-up USD, which is their business, and the real idea behind their creation of stablecoin. And while we are seeing more every day, they really can’t keep up with paying holders; it’s going to destroy the system.

It is not very straightforward like you think. There are many countries like Venezuela, Sudan, Lebanon, Iran, Turkiye and Nigeria that are hit with high inflation, making their local currencies to be highly devalued, many people in this countries find it easy to go for stable coins than going for domiciliary account. But you are right that having fiat is better than stable coins but that will be if the inflation in a country is fair and not too much.

[Nwada001]

It is not very straightforward like you think. There are many countries like Venezuela, Sudan, Lebanon, Iran, Turkiye and Nigeria that are hit with high inflation, making their local currencies to be highly devalued, many people in this countries find it easy to go for stable coins than going for domiciliary account. But you are right that having fiat is better than stable coins but that will be if the inflation in a country is fair and not too much.

In a country like Nigeria, where I’m from and reside, I understand why some people will choose to hold stablecoins like USDT over our currency, but the dollar is also not without being affected by inflation coupled with how the naira has been reacting these past few weeks as if it’s gaining value over the dollar by some percentage.

If it’s possible to get a physical dollar, I still consider it preferable and safer compared to holding USDT; the fear of one holding being somehow labeled as linked to a sanctioned or illegal activity that will lead to freezing put me in an unrest state.

[asriloni]

If you ask me, the stablecoin holders are basically treated unfairly by the stable coin issuer especially USDT and USDC. The reason? Those issuers are using our money to buy T-bill, which should have given us 5% APY from Tbill yield but they decide to keep it for themselves instead of distributed it to the anyone who minted stable coin.

It would be much fairer if the stable coin issuer such as Tether or Circle share at least 40% - 50% yield generated to the public who used their minters to issue the stable coin instead of keep them all for themselves.

This is the reason i use USDT and USDC for the daily transaction only, but when i'm planning to own stablecoin for long term, i'd rather choose USDG because it distributes yield generated by T-bill fairly to all of minters or holders.

[RGBTC]

thoughts based on this read https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-29/html/2026-19860-2.htm

It’s a bit too long a read for the limited time I have. So, how does it actually work? For instance, how are dividends distributed between someone who holds the asset for just one minute versus someone who holds it for a full year? Under conventional banking rules, you are only entitled to interest or dividends if you hold the asset for a specific, locked-in period.

And if we draw an analogy between a stablecoin issuer and a central bank, does that mean we would receive gold simply for holding paper money, without any formal contract?

[PostQuantumBTC]

In a country like Nigeria, where I’m from and reside, I understand why some people will choose to hold stablecoins like USDT over our currency, but the dollar is also not without being affected by inflation coupled with how the naira has been reacting these past few weeks as if it’s gaining value over the dollar by some percentage.

That is how this world is, all the countries are having inflation and their fiat are getting devalued but it may not be noticable because the money devaluation and inflation are higher in one country that another. This is the reason it is good to invest in good assets at the appropriate time, an asset like bitcoin or gold.

If it’s possible to get a physical dollar, I still consider it preferable and safer compared to holding USDT; the fear of one holding being somehow labeled as linked to a sanctioned or illegal activity that will lead to freezing put me in an unrest state.

I guess you are talking about dollar in domiciliary account and not physical dollar but US dollar is what people call it which can mean digital fiat or physical fiat dollar.

[mu_enrico]

Well, it's quite complicated since issuers like USDT provide services for practically free, and the way they get money is from using their reserves to get profits from various sources, including interest. Traditional banks also don't want to compete (IMO), so if you want to get interest, it's better to put your money in traditional banks -- that's implied. From another perspective, the gov views stablecoin as a means of payment, so users don't require yield...

Ideally, we also want interest like on a savings account as a user, but sadly that's not what happens. We have to face it as the current reality, as it's better than nothing. It's quite a long effort to make stablecoin legal; probably the next step would be about yield, one step at a time.

[7juju]

If you ask me, the stablecoin holders are basically treated unfairly by the stable coin issuer especially USDT and USDC. The reason? Those issuers are using our money to buy T-bill, which should have given us 5% APY from Tbill yield but they decide to keep it for themselves instead of distributed it to the anyone who minted stable coin.

It would be much fairer if the stable coin issuer such as Tether or Circle share at least 40% - 50% yield generated to the public who used their minters to issue the stable coin instead of keep them all for themselves.

This is the reason i use USDT and USDC for the daily transaction only, but when i'm planning to own stablecoin for long term, i'd rather choose USDG because it distributes yield generated by T-bill fairly to all of minters or holders.

USDT and USDC issuer are not in any obligation to issue holders, with any percentage of their yield generated. If they decide to do it in the future good and fine, if they also want to continue with their present arrangement they are within their rights. They don’t have any legal obligation with holders to share their revenue with them. The people sharing their revenue are probably using that as leverage to get more holders to their side. How may companies will be ready to share their revenues with people they don’t have revenue sharing agreement with?