Speaker Tim Scott, R-S.C., hears testimony from Kevin Warsh at the Dirksen Building on Tuesday, April 21, 2026.
Tom Williams | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | getty images
A major regulation bill for the crypto industry is scheduled to receive an initial vote in the Senate Banking Committee on May 14.
The move to pursue legislation is detrimental to the banking industry. Banks have argued that the proposed legislative language setting limits on how much interest can be earned on stablecoins is still too similar to yield-bearing products like savings accounts, and could put traditional banks and their deposits at risk. Historically, interest in the form of rewards has been a major incentive for users to hold stablecoins.
Scott told Fox Business last week that he wanted “13 out of 13 Republicans on the board,” referring to all GOP members on the committee.
It is unclear whether any Democrats will vote for the bill, as there are differences yet to be resolved, including provisions that would limit how politicians can profit from digital assets.
Several senators and industry experts have suggested the bill could be changed to gain Democratic support between the committee vote and a possible vote on the Senate floor. But time is running out for lawmakers to resolve differences in that chamber, and it is unclear whether the House will want to make changes of its own.
A committee was formed to advance the bill in January, but it was canceled at the 11th hour after both the banking and crypto industries raised concerns about the legislation.
Crypto companies are also included coinbase Now a compromise proposal has been released across the board by Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., on how crypto companies could offer rewards to stablecoin users that wouldn’t compete with what banks offer for deposits. A stablecoin is a digital currency designed to maintain a consistent value by being pegged to a reserve currency, usually the US dollar.
Yet groups representing both commercial and community banks say the language “falls short” of protecting banking deposits.
Tillis acknowledged in a post on X that although Banks may not be happy with the language, “we agree to respectfully disagree.”