La batalla regulatoria en torno a las stablecoins y su impacto en la valoración de las criptomonedas

The stablecoin sector stands at a crossroads in late 2025, as regulatory frameworks crystallize and tensions between crypto platforms and traditional banking institutions escalate. For investors, the interplay between these forces-shaped by the U.S. GENIUS Act, the EU's MiCA enforcement, and the strategic maneuvers of firms like Coinbase-demands a nuanced understanding of risk, compliance, and market dynamics. This analysis explores how the regulatory battle over stablecoin reward structures is reshaping crypto valuations and outlines strategic positioning for investors navigating this evolving landscape.

Regulatory Frameworks: A Global Convergence

The U.S. GENIUS Act, enacted in July 2025, has established a federal framework requiring stablecoin issuers to maintain 1:1 reserves of high-quality assets, with monthly public disclosures and annual audits. This aligns with the EU's MiCA regulation, which mandates similar reserve adequacy and cross-border compliance, reducing fragmentation and fostering institutional confidence. In the UK, the Bank of England's proposal to require 60% of GBP stablecoin reserves in government debt further underscores a global shift toward safety-first policies. These frameworks aim to mitigate systemic risks while legitimizing stablecoins as a cornerstone of modern finance.

However, the regulatory clarity also introduces new complexities. For instance, the GENIUS Act's prohibition on direct interest payments to stablecoin holders has spurred creative workarounds, such as Coinbase's affiliate-based reward programs. This legal ambiguity-particularly around custodial platforms' role as "holders" of stablecoins-has become a flashpoint in the broader conflict between crypto innovators and legacy banking systems.

The Coinbase-Banking Sector Clash: Rewards as a Regulatory Flashpoint

The banking sector's opposition to stablecoin rewards has intensified in 2025, with the American Bankers Association and 52 state banking associations lobbying to extend the GENIUS Act's interest ban to affiliated entities. Their argument hinges on the threat stablecoin rewards pose to traditional revenue streams, including $360 billion in annual profits from Fed reserve interest and card swipe fees. Coinbase, meanwhile, has defended its reward programs as a means to "modernize the U.S. payment system" and expand financial inclusion.

This conflict is not merely semantic. If the banking sector succeeds in extending the interest ban, platforms like Coinbase could lose a key tool for attracting liquidity and user engagement. Conversely, if Coinbase's interpretation of the GENIUS Act prevails-arguing that custodial platforms are not "holders" of stablecoins but rather intermediaries- the door remains open for innovation in yield-generating stablecoin products. For investors, the outcome of this legal and political battle will directly influence the valuation trajectories of both crypto-native firms and traditional banks.

Historical Precedents: Regulatory Clarity as a Double-Edged Sword

History offers instructive parallels. The EU's MiCA regulation, which took effect in January 2025, initially caused market volatility as non-compliant stablecoins were delisted from exchanges. However, this regulatory clarity ultimately spurred institutional adoption, with MiCA-compliant stablecoins like USDC gaining dominance in cross-border payments. Similarly, the U.S. GENIUS Act's reserve requirements have bolstered confidence in payment stablecoins, with projections of a 20-30% adoption increase in 2026.

Yet regulatory clarity also carries risks. The Basel Committee's reassessment of prudential rules for crypto exposures, for example, has highlighted lingering concerns about stablecoin liquidity and counterparty risks. Investors must weigh these factors against the potential for stablecoins to displace traditional bank deposits, particularly among digitally native demographics.

Strategic Positioning for Investors

For investors, the key lies in balancing exposure to innovation with risk mitigation. Here are three strategic considerations:

Prioritize Compliant Stablecoins: As jurisdictions enforce stricter reserve and audit requirements, stablecoins like USDC and USDT (once MiCA-compliant) will likely outperform non-compliant alternatives. Institutional adoption of these tokens is expected to drive volume growth, particularly in remittances and cross-border trade.

Monitor Legal and Political Developments: The outcome of the Coinbase-banking sector conflict will shape the future of stablecoin rewards. Investors should closely track legislative updates and court rulings, as well as the Bank of England's proposed 60% reserve rule for GBP stablecoins.

Diversify Across Use Cases: Beyond payments, stablecoins are increasingly integral to tokenized financial assets and smart contract ecosystems. Investors should explore opportunities in infrastructure providers (e.g., custodians, auditors) and platforms leveraging stablecoins for programmable finance.

Conclusion

The stablecoin regulatory battle of late 2025 is not just a legal or political contest-it is a defining moment for the crypto asset class. For investors, the path forward requires a dual focus: capitalizing on the growth of regulated stablecoins while hedging against the risks of regulatory overreach or market fragmentation. As Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has noted, the banking sector's stance may eventually evolve to accommodate interest-paying stablecoins. Until then, strategic positioning will hinge on adaptability, compliance, and a deep understanding of the interplay between innovation and institutional power.