Pakistan Lifts 2018 Crypto Banking Ban – Licensed Firms Gain Access to Financial System Under Strict Limits

Key Takeaways

Pakistan Reverses 2018 Crypto Banking Restrictions

Pakistan has ended the crypto banking ban that had been in place since 2018. The decision allows licensed crypto firms to access banking services within the country’s financial system.

The original restriction prevented banks from providing services connected to digital asset activities. With the ban now lifted, the regulatory approach shifts from a blanket restriction to a controlled access model. Licensed firms are permitted to operate with banking support, provided they comply with strict regulatory requirements.

This marks a structural change in how crypto-related businesses interact with Pakistan’s formal financial infrastructure. Instead of being excluded from banking services, qualified firms can now maintain accounts and conduct financial operations through regulated channels.

Access Granted to Licensed Firms Under Strict Regulation

The updated framework limits access to firms that meet licensing requirements. Only licensed entities are permitted to use banking services in connection with crypto-related activities.

The emphasis on licensing indicates that participation in the financial system is conditional. Firms must operate within regulatory parameters set by the relevant authorities. The measure does not represent a removal of oversight. Instead, it replaces a prohibition with a supervised model.

For crypto businesses, access to banking services is operationally significant. It allows companies to process payments, manage fiat transactions, and interact with customers and partners through established financial channels. Under the previous ban, such activities were restricted due to the lack of banking access.

By limiting eligibility to licensed firms, Pakistan’s framework differentiates between regulated operators and unlicensed market participants. The change formalizes how approved crypto businesses can function within the domestic financial system.

Banks Remain Barred from Holding or Trading Digital Assets

While licensed crypto firms can now access banking services, banks themselves remain restricted from directly holding or trading digital assets.

This distinction is central to the new regulatory setup. Financial institutions are not permitted to take positions in cryptocurrencies or include digital assets on their balance sheets. Their role is confined to providing banking services to licensed crypto companies, not participating in crypto markets directly.

The separation reduces direct exposure of the banking sector to digital asset price movements and market risks. At the same time, it enables banks to service clients that operate in the crypto sector, provided those clients meet licensing and regulatory standards.

For users and businesses, this means that traditional financial institutions will not act as crypto investors or traders under the new rules. Their involvement is limited to facilitating standard banking functions.

Implications for Crypto Market Participants

For crypto firms operating in Pakistan, access to the banking system changes how they can structure their operations. With regulated banking support, licensed entities can conduct transactions through formal financial channels rather than relying on alternative arrangements.

For users, the change may affect how crypto services are delivered domestically. Licensed companies operating under regulatory supervision and with banking access may offer more standardized financial interactions. However, banks themselves will not provide direct crypto trading or custody services under the current framework.

The model introduced by Pakistan distinguishes clearly between service provision and asset exposure. Crypto companies can function within the financial system if licensed. Banks, in contrast, remain outside direct participation in digital asset markets.

This approach establishes a regulated pathway for crypto firms while maintaining limits on the traditional banking sector’s direct involvement with digital assets.

Regulatory Shift From Prohibition to Controlled Integration

The 2018 ban effectively isolated crypto-related firms from the banking sector. By lifting that restriction, Pakistan has moved from an exclusion-based model to one that allows conditional integration.

The new arrangement does not legalize unrestricted crypto activity within the banking sector. Instead, it introduces a dual structure: licensed crypto firms can operate with banking access, and banks can provide services without engaging in crypto trading or holdings.

Such a framework creates defined roles for both sides. Crypto businesses must obtain and maintain licenses to access financial infrastructure. Banks must adhere to the prohibition on directly holding or trading digital assets.

The result is a regulated interface between the crypto sector and the traditional financial system, replacing the earlier blanket restriction with supervised access.

Our Assessment

Pakistan’s decision ends an eight-year crypto banking restriction introduced in 2018 and replaces it with a licensing-based access model. Licensed crypto firms can now use banking services under strict regulation, while banks remain prohibited from directly holding or trading digital assets. The change formalizes the relationship between crypto businesses and the financial system without extending direct crypto exposure to banks.

bet365 Stops Accepting Credit Card Deposits in the United States – Regulatory Pressure Reshapes Payment Options

Key Takeaways

Credit Card Deposits Discontinued as of April 13, 2026

bet365 has confirmed that it no longer accepts credit cards as a deposit method for customers in the United States. The change took effect on April 13, 2026. From that date onward, users are no longer able to fund their betting accounts with credit cards.

The adjustment applies specifically to the U.S. market. The company has not indicated in the available information that the policy extends beyond the United States. For users based in the country, this means that any existing reliance on credit card funding must be replaced with one of the remaining supported payment methods.

For customers who regularly use online sportsbooks or betting platforms, payment method availability directly affects how accounts can be funded and managed. The removal of credit card deposits changes the range of financial tools available to U.S. users of bet365.

Regulatory Pressure Drives Industry Shift

The decision comes as regulators intensify their focus on consumer protection within the sports betting sector. According to the reported information, bet365’s move aligns with a broader industry shift in response to mounting regulatory pressure.

Regulators have been pushing for stronger consumer safeguards in sports betting. Within that context, payment methods are a central area of attention. Credit cards, which allow users to access borrowed funds, have increasingly been scrutinized as part of discussions about responsible gambling measures and financial risk management.

While the available details do not specify individual regulatory directives or state level measures, the framing of the change indicates that operators are adjusting their payment offerings in response to compliance expectations. bet365’s decision reflects that wider regulatory environment.

For users, this highlights the growing connection between regulatory developments and practical account functionality. When authorities tighten consumer protection standards, operational changes at sportsbook level can follow, including restrictions on specific deposit methods.

Alternative Payment Methods Remain Available

Although credit cards are no longer accepted, bet365 continues to offer other deposit options in the United States. Debit cards remain available, as does Apple Pay, provided the relevant conditions for those services are met.

The continuation of debit card payments means that users can still fund accounts directly from linked bank accounts, but without accessing a line of credit. Apple Pay also remains part of the payment ecosystem, offering another digital method for deposits.

For active users, the practical implication is a shift from credit based funding to direct payment or wallet based solutions. Those who previously relied on credit cards will need to ensure that they have an alternative method set up in their account to continue placing wagers without interruption.

Payment method availability is a key consideration for many bettors, particularly those comparing platforms across jurisdictions. Changes such as this can influence user experience, transaction planning, and overall account management.

Impact on U.S. Sports Betting Customers

For customers in the United States, the removal of credit card deposits represents a concrete operational change. It affects how funds can be transferred into betting accounts and may require adjustments in personal budgeting or payment preferences.

Users who maintain multiple sportsbook accounts often evaluate platforms based on transaction flexibility, processing speed, and compatibility with their preferred payment methods. When a major operator like bet365 modifies its accepted deposit options, it can alter those comparisons.

The development also illustrates how regulatory dynamics shape day to day platform features. Payment methods are not static offerings. They can evolve in response to compliance requirements, legal interpretations, and policy priorities related to consumer protection.

For international observers and comparison platform users, the change serves as a reminder that payment availability can differ significantly by country. A method supported in one jurisdiction may be restricted or removed in another, depending on the regulatory landscape.

Our Assessment

bet365’s decision to stop accepting credit cards for deposits in the United States took effect on April 13, 2026 and aligns with increased regulatory pressure for stronger consumer protections in sports betting. Debit cards and Apple Pay remain available as alternative funding methods. The change demonstrates how regulatory developments directly influence payment options offered by licensed operators in the U.S. market.

Iran Demands Bitcoin Toll for Strait of Hormuz Transit – Ceasefire Move Links Oil Shipping to Crypto Payments

Key Takeaways

Financial Times Report Details Proposed Bitcoin Toll

The Financial Times reported on April 8 that Iran plans to charge ships a toll for passing through the Strait of Hormuz during the current two week ceasefire in the war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. According to the report, the fee would amount to 1 US dollar per barrel of oil and must be paid in Bitcoin.

Hamid Hosseini, spokesperson for Iran’s Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union, told the Financial Times that vessels would be required to submit inventory data by email. After Iran completes its assessment, ships would be given a short window of a few seconds to transfer the Bitcoin payment. The report states that this structure is intended to prevent tracing or confiscation linked to sanctions.

The Strait of Hormuz is described as one of the most important oil maritime transit chokepoints globally. Before the war, roughly 20 percent of global oil flows passed through the strait, supplying markets in Europe, Asia, and other regions. Control over this route therefore carries direct implications for international energy trade.

Geopolitical Context and Control of the Strait

The report outlines Iran’s strategic position in the strait. Iran maintains control through long range missiles, underwater mines, and attack drone technologies. During the conflict, the ability to disrupt or threaten shipping traffic has been presented as a significant leverage point.

US President Donald Trump said earlier that a joint venture with Iranian leadership had been discussed as a way of securing the strait. In a statement to ABC, he described the idea as a potential method of ensuring security. However, after reports of a toll surfaced, Trump stated that Iran “should not charge fees” and warned that such actions should stop if they were taking place.

Saudi Arabia also reacted. Ali Shihabi, described as a commentator close to the Saudi royal court, stated that allowing Iran any form of control over the strait would be a red line and emphasized that unimpeded access should remain the priority.

The article further cites Trump acknowledging the difficulty of fully securing the strait from small scale attacks. He noted that relatively low cost actions, such as placing a mine or firing from shore, could disrupt safe passage. This highlights the economic imbalance between the cost of attacking vessels and the cost of defending them.

Why Bitcoin Was Named as the Payment Method

According to the report, Iran’s decision to request Bitcoin instead of dollars, yuan, or gold reflects the country’s position under heavy US sanctions. The United States has restricted Iran’s access to Western payment systems, limiting its use of dollar based financial infrastructure.

The article argues that relying on another national currency would increase dependency on a foreign power. Physical gold would require transport or settlement through financial intermediaries, which could reintroduce sanction risks. In contrast, Bitcoin transactions occur on a decentralized blockchain network that operates internationally.

The report states that Bitcoin payments would allow for quick digital settlement. It also notes that Bitcoin holdings can be stored in multi signature cold storage setups that require multiple keys for withdrawals. Such arrangements can distribute keys across locations, complicating potential confiscation.

Iran has previously been reported to hold up to 10 percent of global Bitcoin mining capacity at various times, according to the article. This suggests prior operational experience with mining and securing the asset.

Market Reaction and Operational Challenges

Following publication of the Financial Times report, Bitcoin’s price increased to 73,000 US dollars from levels in the high 60,000 range. The development drew attention within the cryptocurrency sector and in international media.

If the toll were implemented, oil tankers would need to obtain Bitcoin in amounts potentially reaching millions of dollars per shipment, depending on cargo size. However, the article notes that most Western Bitcoin exchanges are prohibited from conducting business with Iran due to sanctions. Shipping companies would therefore need to source Bitcoin in jurisdictions that permit such transactions.

The report suggests that this could involve exchanges in eastern markets. Increased demand in those regions could influence local pricing and mining activity. The article also mentions that if eastern mining capacity remains significant, attempts to censor specific Bitcoin transactions would be difficult.

Implications for International Oil Trade

Countries that rely heavily on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz include China, Japan, and European nations, according to the article. A Bitcoin denominated toll would introduce a cryptocurrency component into routine energy logistics.

Such a system would require shipping operators and energy traders to integrate Bitcoin acquisition and transfer into their operational workflows. It would also connect geopolitical risk in a major oil corridor with cryptocurrency market activity.

At the same time, political reactions from the United States and Saudi Arabia indicate that the proposal faces diplomatic resistance. Whether the toll remains in place or is revised would depend on ongoing negotiations and the broader conflict environment, as described in the report.

Our Assessment

The reported plan to charge a Bitcoin based toll for passage through the Strait of Hormuz links a major global oil transit route with cryptocurrency settlement. The proposal emerged during a temporary ceasefire and triggered immediate market reaction in Bitcoin’s price. Given the strait’s role in handling around one fifth of global oil flows before the war, any payment requirement tied to transit has direct relevance for energy markets, shipping companies, and cryptocurrency liquidity. The situation combines sanctions policy, maritime security, and digital asset infrastructure within a single geopolitical development.

Coinbase CEO Backs CLARITY Act After Earlier Opposition – Senate Progress Remains Pending

Key Takeaways

Coinbase CEO Reverses Position on the CLARITY Act

Brian Armstrong, chief executive of Coinbase, has publicly expressed support for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the CLARITY Act, after previously distancing the company from the legislation.

In a post published on X, Armstrong stated that “it’s time to pass the Clarity Act,” aligning himself with recent remarks by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Bessent had called on Congress to move forward with the bill in an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal.

Armstrong’s endorsement marks a change in position. In January, he said Coinbase could not support the bill “as written” ahead of a key committee vote. Following that statement, lawmakers in the Senate Banking Committee postponed a planned markup of the legislation, a necessary procedural step before it can advance.

According to Armstrong, the current draft reflects months of negotiations between lawmakers and representatives from the crypto and banking sectors. He described the updated version as a “strong bill,” indicating that earlier concerns had been addressed in subsequent revisions.

Legislative Status in the Senate

The CLARITY Act has faced procedural delays since the beginning of the year. Although the Senate Agriculture Committee approved the bill in January, further action is required in the Senate Banking Committee. Each committee oversees different regulatory areas, including aspects of securities and commodities law that affect digital assets.

As of Friday, no new markup had been scheduled in the Banking Committee. Both committees must complete their reviews before the legislation can move to a vote in the full Senate chamber.

Armstrong had previously indicated in January that he expected the bill to pass “in a few weeks.” However, progress stalled due to concerns raised during negotiations. Issues cited at the time included ethics provisions, tokenized equities and stablecoin yield mechanisms, as well as other crypto related regulatory questions.

Coinbase’s chief legal officer, Paul Grewal, said last week that lawmakers were “very close to a deal” on the legislation, suggesting that discussions are ongoing despite the lack of a scheduled markup.

Treasury Secretary Calls for Congressional Action

The renewed push for the CLARITY Act follows public comments from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In his Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Bessent urged Congress to act on the crypto market structure bill without further delay.

Armstrong explicitly referenced Bessent’s position in his social media post, stating that Coinbase agreed with the Treasury Secretary’s call for action. The alignment between the Treasury Department and a major US crypto exchange highlights the broader institutional engagement surrounding the bill.

The debate over the CLARITY Act has drawn attention to the role of the crypto industry in Washington. Executives from Coinbase and Ripple Labs have participated in discussions with administration officials regarding the legislation. Armstrong reportedly met with US President Donald Trump prior to a social media message from the president calling for immediate action on crypto market structure reform.

Regulatory Developments for Coinbase

The legislative discussions coincide with recent regulatory approvals affecting Coinbase and other digital asset firms. Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency approved Coinbase’s application for a national bank trust charter.

In December, similar approvals were granted to Paxos, Ripple Labs, BitGo, Circle and Fidelity Digital Assets. These developments indicate ongoing regulatory activity at the federal level in parallel with congressional efforts to define crypto market structure.

For users of crypto platforms, including those evaluating services for trading, payments or online betting, the CLARITY Act is relevant because it addresses how digital assets may be classified and supervised under US law. The bill’s progress through Congress could influence how exchanges and related service providers operate within the existing financial regulatory framework.

Industry Influence and Political Context

Since before President Trump’s inauguration, observers have questioned the extent of the crypto industry’s influence on policy decisions in Washington. The involvement of senior executives from major digital asset companies in legislative discussions has intensified scrutiny of these relationships.

Armstrong’s meeting with the president and his public advocacy for the bill illustrate the active engagement of industry leaders in shaping regulatory outcomes. At the same time, the formal legislative process remains ongoing, with committee procedures and negotiations determining the pace of progress.

Our Assessment

Brian Armstrong’s renewed support for the CLARITY Act represents a shift from Coinbase’s earlier position and comes as negotiations in the Senate continue. The bill has cleared the Senate Agriculture Committee but awaits further action in the Senate Banking Committee. Public backing from the US Treasury Secretary and participation from major crypto firms underline the significance of the legislation within ongoing efforts to define US crypto market structure. For market participants and platform users, the outcome of the legislative process may shape the regulatory environment in which digital asset services operate.

Stacked Launches Self-Custodial Lightning Wallet – Expands Non-Custodial Bitcoin Access in New Zealand

Key Takeaways

Stacked Introduces Self-Custodial Wallet With Lightning Integration

Stacked, previously operating under the name Lightning Pay, has launched a self-custodial Bitcoin and Lightning wallet through its platform StackedBitcoin.com. The company describes the release as part of its strategy to make Bitcoin usable as everyday money rather than solely as a tradable asset held on custodial platforms.

The wallet is built with Breez and Spark SDKs on the back end and offers full Lightning Network integration. According to the company, users can manually purchase Bitcoin or set up recurring purchases through a feature called Autostack, which enables scheduled buying similar to dollar cost averaging.

In addition to holding and sending Bitcoin, users can manage contacts within the app and initiate payments in Bitcoin while recipients receive fiat currency. This functionality is supported by New Zealand’s Open Banking payments framework, which Stacked uses to settle fiat transfers to billers and landlords.

Positioning as a Non-Custodial Alternative in a Changing Market

Stacked operates as a four person company and states that it has experienced significant growth in recent years. Its latest product launch comes amid structural changes in the New Zealand crypto sector.

According to the report, EasyCrypto, a swap exchange that allowed users to send fiat and receive crypto directly into their own wallets, was acquired by SwyFTX and subsequently shut down. Its user base was directed to the parent custodial exchange. Other platforms, such as Sharesies, are described as following a model in which users cannot withdraw crypto assets to self-custodied wallets.

Stacked’s model differs in that users send fiat to the company and receive Bitcoin into a wallet they control. With the new wallet launch, the company combines its swap exchange service with a proprietary self-custody solution.

The company’s co founder and chief revenue officer, identified as Simon, stated that larger exchanges in the country are focusing on custodial and paper bitcoin products. Stacked’s approach centers on direct ownership and on chain or Lightning based transfers.

Bitcoin Payments for Bills and Rent via Open Banking

A central feature of the new wallet is its integration with New Zealand’s Open Banking payments framework. Through this system, users can pay utility bills or rent in Bitcoin. Stacked converts and settles the equivalent amount in fiat to the recipient.

This structure allows Bitcoin holders to use digital assets for routine expenses while interacting with counterparties who may not accept cryptocurrency directly. For users evaluating crypto platforms, the ability to bridge Bitcoin payments with fiat settlement can affect how funds are stored and used.

The wallet’s Lightning Network integration is designed to facilitate faster and lower cost transactions compared with standard on chain transfers. By combining swap services, Lightning functionality, and fiat settlement, Stacked links exchange activity with day to day spending tools.

New Zealand Crypto Usage and Tax Framework

The broader crypto market in New Zealand provides the context for Stacked’s expansion. In the 2025 financial year, 227,000 New Zealanders were identified as unique cryptoasset users. These users conducted approximately 7 million transactions over the period.

Local cryptocurrency exchange volumes reached about NZ$7.8 billion during the same timeframe. Stacked projects that the country’s digital asset market will generate revenue exceeding US$200 million in 2026.

The country does not apply a capital gains tax. Instead, Bitcoin profits are taxed as income. This tax treatment shapes how gains are reported and may influence how users structure their trading or spending activity.

According to 2024 research by Protocol Theory, nearly 50 percent of New Zealanders are current or prospective investors in Bitcoin and digital assets. This level of participation indicates a broad base of interest in crypto related products and services.

Focus on Local Circular Economy in Queenstown

Stacked has concentrated part of its efforts on what it calls the Bitcoin Basin in Queenstown, New Zealand. The area is described as a growing circular economy with Bitcoin accepting merchants.

The company has established a dedicated website for the community and hosts regular events aimed at encouraging local Bitcoin usage. By supporting merchant adoption and consumer payments, Stacked aligns its wallet launch with its stated objective of making Bitcoin usable as money within defined geographic areas.

For users comparing platforms, the presence of local merchant networks and fiat settlement options can influence decisions about which services provide practical spending functionality in addition to trading access.

Our Assessment

Stacked’s launch of a self-custodial Lightning wallet adds a new product to New Zealand’s crypto market at a time when several exchanges have moved toward custodial models or have consolidated operations. The company combines swap services, self custody, Lightning payments, and fiat settlement through Open Banking. With 227,000 identified crypto users and NZ$7.8 billion in exchange volumes in the 2025 financial year, the domestic market provides measurable activity levels against which such services operate. The development highlights a structural distinction between custodial and non-custodial offerings within New Zealand’s evolving crypto sector.

US Treasury Advances GENIUS Act Implementation – Stablecoin Issuers Face Bank Secrecy Act and Sanctions Compliance Requirements

Key Takeaways

Treasury and OFAC Propose Rule Targeting Illicit Finance in Stablecoin Payments

The US Treasury Department has taken a further step in implementing the GENIUS Act by publishing a joint proposed rule through its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. The proposal focuses on reducing illicit finance risks linked to payment stablecoins.

According to the notice, payment stablecoin issuers in the United States would be required to establish and maintain anti money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism programs. In addition, issuers would need to implement sanctions compliance measures in line with OFAC requirements.

A central element of the proposal is the obligation for issuers to have the operational capacity to block, freeze, and reject certain transactions. This requirement would apply in cases involving sanctions, suspicious activity, or other legal triggers defined under US financial law.

For users of crypto payment systems, including those transferring stablecoins to online platforms, this framework signals stricter transaction oversight at the issuer level. Stablecoin transfers could be subject to intervention if they fall within the scope of sanctions or AML enforcement.

Stablecoin Issuers to Be Treated as Financial Institutions Under the Bank Secrecy Act

Under the proposed rule, payment stablecoin issuers would be classified as financial institutions for purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act. This classification would align them with entities such as banks in terms of compliance expectations.

Being brought under full BSA and OFAC compliance would require issuers to adopt formal risk management structures, reporting systems, and monitoring mechanisms. The Treasury’s move reflects the broader aim of integrating stablecoin activity into the existing US financial compliance architecture.

Snir Levi, CEO of blockchain intelligence firm Nominis, told Cointelegraph that bringing issuers into full BSA and OFAC compliance effectively turns them into bank like gatekeepers. According to Levi, this could result in a higher number of wallet freezes, blocked transactions, and asset seizures executed at scale.

For crypto users, this classification changes how stablecoins are positioned within the regulatory landscape. Rather than operating solely as blockchain based instruments, payment stablecoins would be subject to oversight similar to traditional financial intermediaries.

GENIUS Act Framework and Timeline for Implementation

The GENIUS Act, described as a stablecoin payments bill, was signed into law by US President Donald Trump in July 2025. The law establishes a federal framework for stablecoin issuers operating in the United States.

The legislation is set to take effect 18 months after it was signed into law or 120 days after federal authorities issue related implementing regulations, whichever comes first. The current proposed rule from Treasury and OFAC forms part of that regulatory rollout.

In parallel, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has issued its own proposed rule under the GENIUS Act framework. The FDIC stated that stablecoin holders would not be insured under the bill. However, reserve deposits held by issuers would receive protection.

This distinction clarifies that while issuers’ backing reserves may benefit from deposit insurance safeguards, individuals holding stablecoins would not receive direct insurance coverage on their token balances.

Congressional Debate Continues on Broader Digital Asset Framework

While federal agencies move ahead with implementing the GENIUS Act, progress on a broader digital asset market structure bill remains stalled in Congress. The bill, referred to as the CLARITY Act when it passed the House of Representatives last year, has not yet advanced in the Senate.

The Senate Banking Committee has not scheduled a markup on the CLARITY Act, a necessary step before a full vote in the chamber. At the same time, representatives from the crypto and banking sectors have met with White House officials to discuss issues including stablecoin yield, tokenized equities, and ethics.

The White House’s Council of Economic Advisers stated that a proposed ban on stablecoin yield in the bill would do very little to protect bank lending and would impose costs on users. As of the latest update, the Senate Banking Committee had not rescheduled a markup session.

For market participants, this means that while stablecoin specific rules are advancing under the GENIUS Act, the wider legal framework for digital assets remains under legislative discussion.

Our Assessment

The Treasury’s proposed rule represents a concrete step in integrating payment stablecoin issuers into the US financial compliance system. By requiring AML, CFT, and sanctions programs and by classifying issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, the GENIUS Act framework increases regulatory oversight of stablecoin transactions. At the same time, related measures by the FDIC clarify the limits of insurance protection for holders and issuers. Together, these actions define how stablecoin payments will be supervised under US law once the implementation timeline is completed.

White House Economic Analysis Finds Stablecoin Yield Ban Offers Limited Support for Bank Lending

Key Takeaways

White House Model Challenges Core Argument for Yield Ban

The White House Council of Economic Advisers has released an economic analysis assessing the impact of prohibiting yield payments on stablecoins. The findings question a central justification for the current legal restriction.

Under the GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, stablecoin issuers must hold reserves on a one to one basis. Each dollar in circulation must be backed by assets such as Treasury bills, cash, or money market funds. The law also prohibits issuers from paying interest or yield to stablecoin holders.

Supporters of the prohibition have argued that if stablecoins were allowed to offer returns comparable to savings accounts, households could shift funds from bank deposits into digital tokens. According to that view, banks would lose a key source of funding, potentially reducing their lending capacity. Some academic estimates suggested lending could contract by as much as $1.5 trillion, particularly affecting community banks.

The Council of Economic Advisers built a model to test these assumptions. Its conclusion states that a yield prohibition would do very little to protect bank lending, while eliminating potential consumer benefits from competitive returns on stablecoin holdings.

Estimated Lending Impact Remains Marginal

According to the White House analysis, banning stablecoin yield under current conditions would increase total bank lending by approximately $2.1 billion. Against a $12 trillion loan book, this represents a change of 0.02 percent.

At the same time, consumers would forgo an estimated $800 million in returns. The report calculates a cost benefit ratio of 6.6, meaning the economic cost to consumers would exceed the projected lending gains by more than six times.

The analysis attributes the limited impact to the way stablecoin reserves are managed. When users convert dollars into stablecoins, issuers typically invest the reserves in Treasury bills, repurchase agreements, and money market funds. These funds move through dealers and counterparties and re enter the broader financial system.

The Council examined three balance sheet scenarios and found that in the most common cases, aggregate deposits across the banking system remain largely unchanged. Funds may shift between institutions, but they do not disappear from the system.

A key variable in the model is the proportion of stablecoin reserves that are effectively removed from lending channels. Based on Circle’s December 2025 reserve report for USDC, the Council calibrated this share at 12 percent. Tether, according to the same report, holds $34 million in bank deposits against a $147 billion reserve pool, implying that the vast majority of reserves are not parked as idle bank deposits.

Role of Excess Liquidity and Monetary Conditions

The report also considers the broader monetary environment. It notes that banks currently hold more than $1.1 trillion in excess liquidity above regulatory minimums. In such conditions, deposit shifts between institutions do not force banks to contract lending because they maintain significant buffers.

The model indicates that under a different monetary framework, the outcome could be larger. If the Federal Reserve were operating with scarce reserves and several additional assumptions held simultaneously, the lending increase from a yield ban could reach $531 billion. However, the Council describes the required combination of conditions as implausible. These include a stablecoin market six times larger relative to its current size, a complete shift of reserves into locked deposits, high substitution between savings accounts and stablecoins, and a change in the Federal Reserve’s operating framework.

Existing Workarounds and Legislative Gaps

Although the GENIUS Act prohibits issuers from paying yield directly to stablecoin holders, the report highlights that third parties are not explicitly barred from offering rewards.

Coinbase, for example, offers USDC Rewards to customers who hold the token in its wallets. These rewards are funded through a revenue sharing agreement with Circle. As of February 2026, the rewards match rates on high yield savings accounts, reflecting underlying returns on Treasury assets.

Some versions of the proposed CLARITY Act would extend the prohibition to intermediaries, preventing them from passing yield to holders. The report notes that whether such measures would withstand political and legal scrutiny remains unresolved.

International Usage and Treasury Market Effects

The Council also addresses the international dimension of stablecoin adoption. More than 80 percent of stablecoin transactions occur outside the United States. Many users in countries with weak currencies or limited banking access use dollar backed tokens as savings tools.

Stablecoin issuers collectively hold more Treasury bills than certain sovereign nations, including Saudi Arabia. Research from the Bank for International Settlements cited in the report found that stablecoin inflows compress short term Treasury yields. This dynamic contributes to lower borrowing costs for the US government.

The Council did not quantify how a yield prohibition might affect foreign demand for stablecoins. However, it notes that reduced adoption could influence this channel of Treasury demand.

Our Assessment

The White House Council of Economic Advisers concludes that under current market and monetary conditions, prohibiting stablecoin yield produces only marginal gains for bank lending while imposing measurable costs on consumers. The analysis also highlights structural features of stablecoin reserve management, existing reward mechanisms through intermediaries, and the significant international role of stablecoins in Treasury markets. For users evaluating stablecoin based services, the findings clarify how federal policy interacts with banking liquidity, reserve structures, and potential returns on digital dollar holdings.

Paysafe Introduces Crypto Deposits for U.S. iGaming and DFS Platforms – MoonPay Integration Expands Payment Options

Key Takeaways

Paysafe Launches MoonPay Powered Crypto Deposits in the U.S.

Paysafe announced on April 7 that it is adding a cryptocurrency deposit option to its payment offering for U.S. iGaming and daily fantasy sports platforms. The new product, branded Pay with Crypto, is enabled through MoonPay infrastructure.

The service allows players to fund their gaming accounts using USDC, other stablecoins, or major cryptocurrencies. Once transferred, the crypto funds are converted into U.S. dollars for use on platforms where such activity is permitted under local rules. The conversion process is integrated into the payment flow, meaning players do not need to handle a separate crypto to cash transaction on their own.

For users, the process involves connecting a crypto wallet or scanning a QR code to initiate the transfer. According to Paysafe, the funds are then credited to the gaming account after conversion into U.S. dollars.

Integration Within Paysafe Gateway

The crypto deposit feature is embedded within Paysafe Gateway, the company’s broader payments platform. Paysafe Gateway already supports a range of payment methods, including cards, digital wallets, eCash, Pay by Bank, and more than 30 local payment options.

By incorporating Pay with Crypto into this existing infrastructure, operators can add cryptocurrency deposits without deploying a separate external system. The crypto option becomes one of several available payment methods within the same framework.

This structure may be relevant for operators that aim to provide multiple funding methods through a single integration. For users comparing platforms, the inclusion of crypto alongside established payment types signals that digital assets are being positioned as an additional, rather than standalone, option within mainstream payment processing.

Stablecoin and Fiat Settlement Options for Operators

In addition to player facing functionality, the new setup provides flexibility for operators in how they receive funds. Through the MoonPay powered infrastructure, operators can choose to settle transactions either in stablecoins or in fiat currencies.

This means that while players may deposit using cryptocurrencies such as USDC or other supported assets, operators are not required to hold crypto exposure if they prefer not to. They can opt for fiat settlement, aligning the new deposit method with existing accounting and treasury processes.

Alternatively, operators that wish to settle in stablecoins can do so within the same framework. The announcement does not specify further operational details, but it confirms that both settlement paths are available.

Demand Indicators Cited by Paysafe

Paysafe links the launch to growing interest in cryptocurrency usage among U.S. consumers. The company states that approximately 70.4 million American adults own cryptocurrency.

In addition, Paysafe references its own research, which found that 83% of U.S. players are interested in crypto payments. The announcement does not provide details about the methodology of this research, but the figures are presented as part of the rationale for introducing the new option.

For readers evaluating crypto enabled betting and gaming platforms, these figures highlight that both ownership and stated interest in crypto payments are significant within the U.S. market, according to Paysafe.

Implications for U.S. iGaming and DFS Platforms

The introduction of Pay with Crypto adds another route for deposits into U.S. iGaming and daily fantasy sports accounts. The funds are converted into U.S. dollars for gameplay where allowed, meaning the gaming activity itself continues to operate in fiat terms.

From a user perspective, the main operational change is the ability to transfer value directly from a crypto wallet into a gaming account without arranging a separate off platform exchange or withdrawal process. The wallet connection or QR code scan forms part of the integrated payment flow.

For operators, the integration within Paysafe Gateway and the option to settle in stablecoins or fiat currencies determine how the crypto deposits are handled on the backend.

The announcement does not specify rollout timelines beyond the April 7 launch date, nor does it detail which specific U.S. brands are first to implement the option. It confirms that the service is being introduced for U.S. iGaming and daily fantasy sports through Paysafe’s infrastructure.

Our Assessment

Paysafe has formally added cryptocurrency deposits to its U.S. iGaming and daily fantasy sports offering through a MoonPay powered solution. Players can use USDC, other stablecoins, or major cryptocurrencies, with automatic conversion into U.S. dollars for permitted gameplay. The feature is integrated into Paysafe Gateway and allows operators to settle in either stablecoins or fiat currencies. The company frames the launch against data indicating widespread crypto ownership in the United States and strong stated interest in crypto payments among players.