Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong is calling for legislative changes in the US to allow stablecoin holders to earn “onchain interest” on their holdings.

In a March 31 post on X, Armstrong argued that crypto companies should be treated similarly to banks and be “allowed to, and incentivized to, share interest with consumers.” He added that allowing onchain interest would be “consistent with a free market approach.”

There are currently two competing pieces of federal stablecoin legislation working their way through the legislative process in the US: the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy (STABLE) Act, and the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.

In reference to the stablecoin legislation, Armstrong said the US had an opportunity to “level the playing field and ensure these laws pave a way for all regulated stablecoins to deliver interest directly to consumers, the same way a savings or checking account can.” 

Armstrong: Onchain interest a boon for US economy

Armstrong argued that while stablecoins have already found product-market fit by “digitizing the dollar and other fiat currencies,” the addition of onchain interest would allow “the average person, and the US economy, to reap the full benefits.”

He said that if legislative changes allowed stablecoin issuers to pay interest to holders, US consumers could earn a yield of around 4% on their holdings, far outstripping the 2024 average interest yield on a consumer savings account, which Armstrong cited as 0.41%.

Armstrong also said onchain interest could benefit the broader US economy — by incentivizing the global use of US dollar stablecoins. This could see their use grow, “pulling dollars back to U.S. treasuries and extending dollar dominance in an increasingly digital global economy,” according to the Coinbase CEO. 

He also argued that the potential for a higher yield than traditional savings accounts would result in “more yield in consumers’ hands means more spending, saving, investing — fueling economic growth in all local economies where stablecoins are held.”

“If we don’t unlock onchain interest, the U.S. misses out on billions more USD users and trillions in potential cash flows,” Armstrong added.

Currently, neither the STABLE Act nor the GENIUS Act gives the legal go-ahead for onchain interest-generating stablecoins. In fact, in its current form, the STABLE Act includes a short passage prohibiting “payment stablecoin” issuers from paying yield to holders:

Related: Stablecoins, tokenized assets gain as Trump tariffs loom

Similarly, the GENIUS Act, which recently passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 18-6, has been amended to exclude interest-bearing instruments from its definition of a “payment stablecoin.”

Commenting on the current state of the STABLE Act, Representative Bryan Steil told Eleanor Terrett, host of the Crypto in America podcast, that two pieces of legislation are positioned to “mirror up” following a few more draft rounds in the House and Senate — due to the differences between them being textual rather than substantive.

“At the end of the day, I think there’s recognition that we want to work with our Senate colleagues to get this across the line,” Steil said.

Magazine: SEC’s U-turn on crypto leaves key questions unanswered

A new semi-permissionless privacy tool, Privacy Pools, has launched on Ethereum, allowing users to transact privately while proving their funds aren’t linked to illicit activities.

The privacy tool, launched by Ethereum builders 0xbow.io on March 31, earned support from the likes of Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who not only backed the privacy project but made one of the first deposits on the platform. 

0xbow.io said that it implements “Association Sets” to batch transactions into the anonymous Privacy Pools and that a screening test is conducted to ensure that those transactions aren’t linked to illicit actors, such as hackers, phishers and scammers.

gm Ethereum ☀️

It is our great honor to announce the mainnet launch of Privacy Pools!

ETH users can now achieve on-chain privacy, while still dissociating from illicit funds

It is now up to all of us to Make Privacy Normal Again 🫡

More info in this thread 👇 pic.twitter.com/3nJO0AxoD1

— 0xbow.io (@0xbowio) March 31, 2025

The Association Sets are “dynamic” — meaning that if a transaction is admitted but later found to be illicit, it can be removed from the set without disrupting any other deposits, 0xbow.io said.

If a deposit is disqualified, the user can click the “ragequit” function to return the funds to their original deposit address.

The innovation is part of 0xbow.io’s vision to “Make Privacy Normal Again” while also attempting to achieve regulatory compliance.  

Privacy protocols have received considerable backlash from regulators in recent years due to their increasing use by illicit actors to launder funds. 

One of those privacy tools, Tornado Cash, was sanctioned by the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) between August 2022 and March 2025 after it was linked to around $7 billion laundered by the North Korean state-backed Lazarus Group.

Tornado Cash has since been removed from OFAC’s blacklist after a US appeals court said the sanctions were unlawful in January 2025.

0xbow.io noted that initial deposits are limited to 1 Ether (ETH) but that the limit would be raised once the privacy protocol is more battle-tested.

Privacy Pools inspired by Buterin and others

Over 21 ETH has already been transferred into Privacy Pools from 69 deposits, including at least one from Buterin, 0xbow.io noted.

In addition to Buterin, 0xbow.io said it also received investment support from Number Group, BanklessVC, Public Works and several angel investors.

Related: Privacy isn’t a luxury in crypto, it’s a necessity — Midnight CEO

0xbow.io also praised Buterin, Chainalysis Chief Scientist Jacob Illum, and two academics at the University of Basel in Switzerland for crafting a September 2023 white paper outlining how Privacy Pools could be built. 

0xbow.io strategic adviser Ameen Soleimani also contributed to the paper, which has seen over 12,000 downloads and has been cited in nine other papers.

The Privacy Pool code also passed a successful audit from Audit Wizard. a smart contract auditing firm co-founded by former Apple engineer Joe van Loon.

More than $41 billion worth of illicit transfers were made in 2024,  which made up 0.14% of total onchain volume for the year, according to the Chainalysis 2025 Crypto Crime report published on Jan. 15.

While it marked around an 11% fall from 2023, Chainalysis said that figure could climb to around $51 billion as more criminal-tied addresses are found.

Magazine: What are native rollups? Full guide to Ethereum’s latest innovation

Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP

Since taking office, the Trump administration has designated several drug and violent cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). US President Donald Trump has also called for the “total elimination” of these cartels and the like. These executive directives are not good developments for the cryptocurrency industry. On their face, these mandates appear focused only on criminal cartels. Make no mistake: These executive actions will cause unforeseen collateral damage to the digital asset community. Crypto actors, including software developers and investors, may very well get caught in the crosshairs of aggressive anti-terrorism prosecutions and follow-on civil lawsuits.

Increased threat of criminal anti-terrorism investigations 

The biggest threat stemming from Trump’s executive order on cartels is the Department of Justice (DOJ). Almost immediately after President Trump called for the designation of cartels as terrorists, the DOJ issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to use “the most serious and broad charges,” including anti-terrorism charges, against cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This is a new and serious development for prosecutors. Now that cartels are designated as terrorist organizations, prosecutors can go beyond the traditional drug and money-laundering statutes and rely on criminal anti-terrorism statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the material-support statute — to investigate cartels and anyone who they believe “knowingly provides material support or resources” to the designated cartels. 

Why should the crypto industry be concerned with these developments? Because “material support or resources” is not just limited to providing physical weapons to terrorists. “Material support or resources” is broadly defined as “any property, tangible or intangible, or service.” Anyone who knowingly provides anything of value to a designated cartel could now conceivably violate § 2339B. 

Even though cryptocurrency platforms are not financial institutions and never take custody of users’ assets, aggressive prosecutors may take the hardline view that software developers who design crypto platforms — and those who fund these protocols — are providing “material support or resources” to terrorists and launch harmful investigations against them.

This is not some abstract possibility. The government has already demonstrated a willingness to take this aggressive position against the crypto industry. For example, the DOJ indicted the developers of the blockchain-based software protocol Tornado Cash on money laundering and sanction charges and accused them of operating a large-scale money laundering operation that laundered at least $1 billion in criminal proceeds for cybercriminals, including a sanctioned North Korean hacking group.

Recent: Crypto crime in 2024 likely exceeded $51B, far higher than reported: Chainalysis

Moreover, the government already believes that cartels use cryptocurrency to launder drug proceeds and has brought numerous cases charging individuals for laundering drug proceeds through cryptocurrency on behalf of Mexican and Colombian drug cartels. TRM Labs, a blockchain intelligence company that helps detect crypto crime, has even identified how the Sinaloa drug cartel — a recently designated FTO/SDGT — has used cryptocurrency platforms to launder drug proceeds.

The digital asset community faces real risks here. Putting aside the reputational damage and costs that come from defending criminal anti-terrorism investigations, violations of § 2339B impose a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years (or life if a death occurred) and monetary penalties. Anti-terrorism statutes also have extraterritorial reach, so crypto companies outside the US are not immune to investigation or prosecution.

Civil anti-terrorism lawsuits will escalate 

The designation of cartels as FTOs/SDGTs will also increase the rate at which crypto companies will be sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). Under the ATA, private citizens, or their representatives, can sue terrorists for their injuries, and anyone “who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.” 

Aggressive plaintiffs’ counsel have already relied on the ATA to sue cryptocurrency companies in court. After Binance and its founder pled guilty to criminal charges in late 2023, US victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel sued Binance and its founder under the ATA, alleging that the defendants knowingly provided a “mechanism for Hamas and other terrorist groups to raise funds and transact illicit business in support of terrorist activities” and that Binance processed nearly $60 million in crypto transactions for these terrorists. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. For now, the district court permits the Ranaan plaintiffs to proceed against Binance with their aiding-and-abetting theory. Crypto companies should expect to see more ATA lawsuits now that drug cartels are on the official terrorist list. 

Vigilance is key 

Crypto companies may think that Trump’s war against cartels has nothing to do with them. The reality is, however, that the effects of this war will be widespread, and crypto companies may be unwittingly drawn into the crossfire. Now is not the time for the digital asset community to relax internal compliance measures. With anti-terrorism statutes in play, crypto companies must ensure that transactions with all FTOs/SDGTs are identified and blocked, monitor for new terrorist designations, and understand areas of new geographical risks.

Opinion by: Genny Ngai and Will Roth of Morrison Cohen LLP.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.