Onigiri Weekend Digest: Institutional Lens #37

🌐 Website | 💼 Linkedln | 📰 Past Editions

Good weekend everyone,

This week’s stablecoin headlines point to one clear theme: stablecoins are no longer being treated as a crypto product. They are being treated as a direct challenge to banking, payments, deposits, and financial market infrastructure.

Recap on the two headliners this week:

SS #105 - Banks Escalate Fight Over Clarity Act Stablecoin Yield

SS #106 - Stripe, Visa, Mastercard Eye Joint Stablecoin Platform

On one side, the largest banks are escalating their fight against stablecoin rewards under the CLARITY Act, arguing that yield-bearing stablecoin products look too much like deposits without equivalent regulation. On the other side, Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, and potentially Coinbase are moving toward shared stablecoin settlement infrastructure, signalling that the biggest payment incumbents now see stablecoins as core rails rather than a peripheral experiment.

The market is moving from adoption to control.

Enjoy the read!

You read and share. We listen and improve. Send us feedback at [email protected].

🍙 Onigiri Take

The first phase of stablecoins was about crypto-native liquidity. USDT and USDC became the default settlement assets for exchanges, DeFi, and offshore digital asset markets.

The second phase was about regulatory legitimacy. The GENIUS Act, CLARITY Act, MiCA, and other frameworks began defining who can issue, hold, distribute, and redeem stablecoins.

We are now entering the third phase: economic capture.

The fight is no longer about whether stablecoins should exist. That debate is largely over. The real battle is about who captures the economics:

• Banks want to preserve deposit funding and prevent stablecoins from becoming yield-bearing substitutes.

• Issuers want to keep reserve income, distribution reach, and wallet ownership.

• Payment networks want to own the settlement layer before independent rails disintermediate them.

• Coinbase wants to defend its USDC economics before its Circle revenue-sharing agreement resets.

• Regulators want innovation, but not a shadow banking system that recreates deposit risk outside the bank perimeter.

The stablecoin yield debate is therefore not a technical clause. It is the most important economic question in the current legislation cycle.

If stablecoins can offer compliant rewards, they become consumer-facing financial accounts. If they cannot, they remain closer to payments instruments and settlement tokens. That distinction determines whether stablecoins compete with banks at the deposit layer or simply plug into existing financial infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Stripe-Visa-Mastercard platform signals the other half of the story: incumbents are no longer waiting for stablecoin startups to build rails around them. They are preparing to build the rails themselves.

🍙 Winners & Losers: Institutional Outlook

🍙 Under the Hood: Yield Is the Real Regulatory Battleground

The CLARITY Act debate is not really about stablecoins as a technology. It is about whether stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms can offer deposit-like economics without becoming banks.

Banks are pushing back because yield-bearing stablecoins threaten one of the most valuable parts of their business model: low-cost deposits. If consumers can hold regulated digital dollars and receive rewards through crypto platforms or fintech wallets, then stablecoins start to compete not just with payment apps, but with bank accounts.

That is why the reaction from major bank CEOs matters. When Jamie Dimon, Brian Moynihan, and Jane Fraser all align against stablecoin rewards, it signals that the banking industry sees this provision as structurally important.

The key regulatory question is simple:

Can a stablecoin be both a payment instrument and a yield-bearing financial product?

If the answer is yes, stablecoins become a major wedge into retail finance. Issuers and platforms could use rewards to attract balances, build wallet relationships, and compete for customer deposits without operating like traditional banks.

If the answer is no, stablecoins remain powerful, but their role is more limited. They become settlement assets, payment rails, and treasury tools, rather than full consumer financial accounts.

This is why the rewards provision may matter more than the rest of the CLARITY Act. Licensing, reserves, disclosures, and redemption rules are important, but they define the safety perimeter. Yield defines the business model.

🍙Stablecoin ≠ Crypto — It Is the New Settlement Layer for Payments

The potential joint platform from Stripe, Visa, and Mastercard shows how quickly stablecoins are being absorbed into mainstream payments infrastructure.

Stripe’s acquisition of Bridge gave it a direct stablecoin orchestration layer. Mastercard’s acquisition of BVNK strengthened its stablecoin payment capabilities. Visa has already expanded stablecoin settlement pilots across multiple chains. Now, a potential shared platform among the largest payment networks suggests a much bigger ambition: stablecoin settlement as common institutional infrastructure.

This changes the market structure.

Instead of stablecoins sitting outside the payment system, they may become embedded inside the existing payment giants. That could accelerate adoption, but it could also centralize control.

For merchants, this is attractive. Stablecoins can reduce settlement time, improve cross-border payment efficiency, and simplify global treasury operations.

For issuers, it is more complicated. If the payment networks control distribution and settlement access, then issuers risk becoming commoditized balance sheet providers. USDC and USDT may remain important, but the customer relationship could shift toward platforms, processors, and networks.

For Coinbase, the timing is especially important. Its Circle revenue-sharing agreement on USDC is a major economic pillar. With the agreement up for renewal, Coinbase has a strong incentive to explore parallel infrastructure and preserve its role in stablecoin distribution.

The larger point is clear: stablecoins are not replacing payments overnight. They are being absorbed, repackaged, and institutionalized by the same companies that already control global money movement.

🍙 Institutional Risks & Unknowns

Despite the progress, several open questions remain:

1. Regulatory classification risk. If lawmakers decide that yield-bearing stablecoins are effectively deposit substitutes, issuers and platforms may face bank-like obligations, or rewards may be restricted altogether.

2. Banking-sector resistance. The banking lobby is now highly coordinated. Even if stablecoin legislation advances, banks may succeed in narrowing the most commercially powerful provisions.

3. Platform concentration. A joint Stripe-Visa-Mastercard platform could accelerate adoption, but it may also create a highly concentrated settlement layer controlled by incumbents.

4. Issuer commoditization. If large payment networks become the primary interface for stablecoin payments, issuers may lose pricing power and brand relevance.

5. Conflicting incentives among incumbents. Stripe, Visa, and Mastercard all want stablecoin capabilities, but each also has existing economics to protect. The success of a shared platform depends on whether they can cooperate without undermining their own legacy businesses.

6. Coinbase’s strategic position. Coinbase’s future stablecoin economics depend heavily on its relationship with Circle, its ability to build proprietary infrastructure, and whether it remains a key distributor or becomes one of many participants in a broader institutional rail.

Onigiri Capital (onigiri.vc), a US$50 million blockchain-focused investment fund, launched by Saison Capital, the venture arm of Japan’s Credit Saison. Onigiri Capital is on a mission to chart the next chapter of finance and invest in seed and Series A blockchain startups in stablecoins, payments, RWAs, DeFi and financial infrastructure. The fund’s strategy emphasizes connecting startups to Asia’s growing digital asset markets.

If you'd like to discuss or contribute to the next Institutional Lens, contact us at [email protected]

Disclaimer: All the information presented in this publication and its affiliates is strictly for educational purposes only. It should not be construed or taken as financial, legal, investment, or any other form of advice.