Stablecoins have moved far beyond crypto trading desks. The Banca d'Italia, in two recent analyses published in July 2026, has raised a pointed question that cuts to the heart of banking: can stablecoins become genuine competitors to bank deposits? The answer depends almost entirely on how they are regulated, and a specific divergence between Europe and the United States is now drawing serious attention.
This is not a panic warning from the central bank. It is a careful, forward-looking diagnosis. The Banca d'Italia is not claiming money is already fleeing current accounts for crypto wallets. It is identifying a precise regulatory gap between the EU framework, MiCA, and the American framework, the GENIUS Act, that could, over time, ignite exactly that competition. The implications reach far beyond finance professionals: they touch banking stability and the effectiveness of monetary policy itself.
The Key Difference Between Europe and the United States
The core of the issue is a technical divergence between two major regulatory regimes. MiCA, the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation, and the GENIUS Act, the United States' federal stablecoin bill, share many structural similarities. On one point, though, they diverge sharply: whether holders of stablecoins can earn a return.
Paolo Angelini, Banca d'Italia
European rules are strict on this point. MiCA explicitly prohibits paying interest to stablecoin holders, and it also bars issuers from applying fees at the moment of redemption. The design is deliberate: a stablecoin in the EU cannot “yield” in any meaningful sense, which keeps it structurally separate from a deposit account.
The American GENIUS Act takes a different approach. The interest ban applies only to the stablecoin issuer itself, not necessarily to third-party operators who build services around the stablecoin. Fees, too, are permitted. It is a partially open door, and the Banca d'Italia, in its July 9 intervention by Deputy Governor Paolo Angelini at the annual AIBE assembly, was quick to flag its significance: this difference, in the central bank's own words, could place the American stablecoin market in direct competition with traditional bank deposit-taking.
Banca d'Italia
Why This Matters for Banks
Why is the ability to “yield” so consequential? The economic logic is concrete. Banks collect customer money through deposits, then use that liquidity as the foundation for their core business: extending credit. Deposits are, in a real sense, the raw material of banking. A current-account holder parks money with the bank, earns a modest interest rate, and the bank deploys those funds productively.
Now picture a scenario, plausible under the GENIUS Act's looser framework, where a US operator builds a product around a stablecoin that offers a competitive yield, routed through a third-party service provider rather than the issuer directly, thereby sidestepping the issuer-level interest ban. At scale, customers would face a genuine incentive to shift liquidity out of bank accounts and into that higher-yielding digital instrument. If that shift happened broadly, banks would see their primary funding source drain away. The downstream consequences for credit availability, and for the wider economy, could be serious. This is precisely the scenario the Banca d'Italia urges policymakers and supervisors to monitor closely.
Stablecoins and Bank Deposits: Banca d'Italia's Assessment
Why the rules matter. Source: Banca d'Italia, 2026
- Europe (MiCA): bans interest payments and redemption fees. Stablecoins cannot compete with deposits.
- USA (GENIUS Act): interest ban applies only to issuers, not to other operators in the stablecoin ecosystem.
- The risk: if a stablecoin yields a return, customers may shift liquidity away from their bank account.
How Households Will Choose, and the European Response
The Banca d'Italia deepened its analysis in a second study, focused on how households will allocate savings across the three main forms of money taking shape for the future: traditional bank deposits, stablecoins, and a possible ECB digital euro. The findings are worth reading carefully.
The first conclusion is that the choice will not be driven by yield alone. Non-monetary characteristics, payment convenience, privacy, and the programmability of money, will all weigh on households' decisions. The second conclusion is a clear warning: stablecoins backed by fragile or opaque reserves carry systemic risks that extend well beyond individual investors.
The third conclusion is arguably the most constructive. According to the Banca d'Italia model, commercial banks can defend their position if they innovate. Specifically, the paper points to “tokenized deposits”: digital versions of traditional deposits built on blockchain infrastructure, paired with modern payment rails. The answer to the stablecoin challenge is not prohibition. It is competing on equal terms, by bringing blockchain efficiency inside the regulated banking system. This mirrors the direction Europe is already taking through the digital euro project and, in practical terms, through early experiments in tokenized bond issuance by institutions such as UniCredit and the Banca d'Italia's own DLT pilots.
Stablecoins: Europe vs United StatesHow each regime shapes competition with bank depositsEuropean Union · MiCAInterest BannedIssuers and crypto-asset service providers may not pay interest or equivalent benefits linked to holding a stablecoin.United States · GENIUS ActBan Concentrated on the IssuerThe remuneration ban targets stablecoin issuers directly, leaving a different regulatory structure for other participants in the value chain.Possible ConsequenceDirect Competition with Bank DepositsAccording to Banca d'Italia, the different US regulatory approach could put the stablecoin market in competition with traditional bank deposit-taking.Source: Banca d'Italia, speech by Paolo Angelini at the AIBE Annual Assembly, 9 July 2026.
The Bigger Picture
The Banca d'Italia's analysis is valuable precisely because it elevates the stablecoin debate to the level it deserves. These instruments are no longer a niche curiosity for crypto enthusiasts. Depending on their regulatory design, stablecoins can reshape the fundamental equilibria of the financial system. The contrast between Europe's more protective, bank-friendly stance under MiCA and America's more competition-open approach under the GENIUS Act reflects two genuinely different philosophies on how to govern monetary innovation.
For observers on both sides of the Atlantic, there are two lessons here. First, regulatory details that look purely technical, like a ban on paying interest, carry enormous practical consequences: they determine whether a new technology coexists peacefully with the existing system or challenges it directly. Second, Europe's strategy is becoming clearer: not to resist innovation, but to channel it, pushing banks to modernize through tokenized deposits and laying the groundwork for a digital euro. The contest between old and new forms of money has only just begun. As the Banca d'Italia makes plain, the outcome will be decided as much by the rules as by the technology itself. For a fuller picture of the American regulatory framework, our dedicated guide on the GENIUS Act is a useful next step.
