NOTE: The following interview is republished with permission from Capitol Account. Rob can be reached at: [email protected] and Ryan at: [email protected]. Please subscribe to their newsletter here.
Rob Schmidt and Ryan Tracy
Though it’s taken much of 2025 to materialize, banks have finally started mounting an aggressive counterattack against the digital assets industry’s push into the finance business. One campaign aims to curtail reward payments on stablecoins, while another warns regulators about granting federal licenses to crypto companies. A third bare-knuckled battle has broken out over sharing customer account data with fintech firms.
The outpouring has served to put lawmakers and the Trump administration on notice that traditional lenders aren’t going to cede their turf without a fight. But their opponents have a different message: bring it on.
“We can go toe-to-toe with these organizations because we’re at that level now,” says Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association and one of the industry’s chief D.C. advocates. “That’s a good thing because they have had so much power in Washington for so long.”
Mersinger took the helm of the trade group, which represents some 140 companies, in June after serving as a CFTC commissioner and a top aide to Senate Majority Leader John Thune. The banking offensive has taken up much of her time, starting with the stablecoin legislation that passed this summer. In a wide-ranging interview with Capitol Account today, she underscores that her members aren’t “afraid to take [banks] on.” In fact, they’re girding for a long-term struggle.
Crypto, of course, has plenty of sway in Washington these days with Donald Trump in the White House and a massive war chest of PAC money already slated for the 2026 midterm elections. Mersinger asserts that her side also has the winning argument – that the innovative upstarts are simply offering better products, while banks are trying to use regulation to protect their interests.
“If you’re so threatened by crypto or fintech or whoever – compete, be better,” she says of the recent pushback. “That’s the way you handle it, not try to use the law or regulation to somehow write those businesses out of existence. That’s kind of been their playbook, but it’s not going to work anymore.” She adds that she hopes the debate will be “a productive conversation, and avoid getting into tit-for-tats or bomb-throwing.”
It’s a philosophy that perhaps doesn’t apply to some prominent crypto executives’ social media posts. Still, the rancor dates back years, from Wall Street executives’ early dismissal of virtual currencies to the much-hyped debanking scandal where banks were accused of refusing to do business with digital assets firms. “They were turned away from traditional finance, illegally,” Mersinger says. “It creates a trust issue. And I think there’s a recognition that this could happen again.”
Here’s a look at a few of the specific arguments that BA and Mersinger are making as they look to check the banks’ newly pugnacious posture.
On stablecoin rewards: Banks see a “loophole” in the GENIUS Act, which bars stablecoin issuers from paying interest or “rewards” but doesn’t stop exchanges or other business partners from offering them. “Taking away the ability to get a reward is just taking money out of the consumer’s pockets,” Mersinger says. “Why should that be the answer?”
Instead, she maintains that lenders worried about losing deposits should keep their customers happy. “What does a deposit account at most banks give you? Less than 1 percent,” Mersinger points out. “If they wanted to give a 3 percent yield on a savings account, well then you probably don’t have the same concern.”
Banking trade groups, for their part, contend that some of the reward-payment schemes are evading Congress’ intent. They have implored the Treasury Department to fix the situation by writing a strong prohibition into regulation. But Mersinger warns that that may exceed agencies’ authority – especially at a time when the Supreme Court has been reining in the administrative state:
“I don’t know how that would stand up in court. The statute is pretty clear: no stablecoin issuer paying yield. An exchange is not the issuer…So I think it would be a real stretch of the statute and probably not hold up, if that’s what the rule said.”
On crypto companies applying for banking charters: In the past couple of weeks, large and small banks have released letters they filed with the OCC urging it to be cautious in awarding trust charters to crypto and fintech companies. The petitions make clear that if the agency moves ahead, a lawsuit could be in the cards. “To me it looks like they’re threatened a little bit,” says Mersinger. “This is [banks saying], `Let’s try to knock out the competition.’”
On open banking: Crypto executives have been energized about pressing the CFPB to maintain, or even strengthen, a rule adopted under Democrat Rohit Chopra that requires banks to share consumer financial data with fintech firms. Lenders filed a lawsuit and successfully blocked the plan, for now. They are pushing for a version that doesn’t require banks to release data to third party apps.
Neither side may get all it wants if the agency runs out of funding as expected early next year, potentially halting the rule rewrite in its tracks. Mersinger, however, predicts that the bureau will finish the project. “The administration recognizes that it is important that they have a robust rule,” she says. “Even with their views on the CFPB, I think they recognize that this rule matters and that there’s a real threat.” The bureau’s staff, she continues, is “working fast to get there, recognizing that…they need to get this done before they run out of money.”
