Ledger Executives: US Stablecoin Yield Ban Creates Opportunities for Overseas Issuers

Takatoshi Shibayama, head of Asia-Pacific for the hardware wallet company Ledger, stated that if the United States ultimately enforces broader bans on stablecoin yield payments, it “will definitely trigger” extensive discussions among overseas stablecoin issuers, institutions, and regulators about how to be the first to offer such yield opportunities to users.

Impact of the US Stablecoin Yield Ban on Competitive Dynamics

(Source: YouTube)

In an interview, Shibayama pointed out that if the US establishes a ban on stablecoin yields, it will create a clear market differentiation opportunity at the policy level. He said, “If the situation in the US changes, I believe it will definitely lead to many discussions between stablecoin issuers and regulators, allowing them to pass on yields or rewards to their user base.”

Shibayama emphasized that even outside the US, most stablecoins currently do not offer yields or rewards to users, mainly “to protect the interests of banks.” He cited Australia as an example, noting that Australia has granted regulatory exemptions to stablecoin issuers, making it one of the more proactive regulatory frameworks.

This stance directly relates to Ledger’s business— as a leading provider of self-custody solutions for digital assets, the stablecoin usage patterns of its clients will be directly affected by yield policies. If overseas markets open up stablecoin yields first, it could accelerate institutional shifts toward non-USD denominated or non-US issued stablecoins.

Asian Institutions’ Forking Strategy: Tokenization Instead of Cryptocurrency

Beyond the stablecoin yield issue, Shibayama also analyzed the latest patterns of Asian institutions adopting crypto technology, revealing a significant strategic divergence. He pointed out that since last year, there has been a “partial decoupling of cryptocurrencies and other blockchain segments” in Asia, showing two distinct behavioral models among institutions:

Preferences of traditional financial institutions (focusing only on blockchain):

• Tokenization of financial products

• Issuance or integration of stablecoins

• Infrastructure and settlement efficiency improvements

Areas actively excluded by traditional financial institutions:

• Decentralized Finance (DeFi) services

• Token staking

• Direct allocation of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum

Shibayama’s comment was straightforward: “These institutions have carefully selected what they want to gain from blockchain technology and have excluded cryptocurrencies—such as Bitcoin and Ethereum—from their discussions.”

However, he noted that asset management firms are “a bit different,” with some still considering launching crypto products to expand the range of offerings to clients. Their main consideration is that currently, there are no strict regulations mandating the use of regulated custodians, but even so, they are becoming “more selective” when choosing custodial providers and clearly “prefer regulated custodians.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the US discussing banning third-party platforms from offering stablecoin yields?

The core of this debate lies in the conflict of commercial interests between the banking industry and crypto firms. Banking lobbies argue that if stablecoins can offer yields higher than traditional deposits, it could lead to large-scale deposit shifts, threatening the stability of traditional banks’ funding pools. Therefore, they actively promote legislation to prohibit crypto platforms from offering stablecoin interest to users, aiming to protect the competitive advantage of existing financial institutions.

How is Ledger’s business in Asia directly related to this issue?

Ledger mainly provides hardware cold wallets and enterprise-grade crypto asset custody solutions. As Asian institutions increasingly favor tokenization and stablecoin applications, the demand for compliant, secure self-custody infrastructure is rising. Shibayama’s analysis reveals market trends that can help Ledger assess whether Asian institutional clients are more inclined toward tokenization infrastructure rather than traditional crypto asset management services.

Is the strategy of “only tokenizing and avoiding cryptocurrencies” sustainable for Asian institutions?

Shibayama’s observations reflect the mainstream stance of traditional Asian financial institutions—leveraging tokenization to gain blockchain efficiency while avoiding the volatility and regulatory uncertainties associated with crypto markets. However, as Bitcoin ETFs become more widespread globally and institutional crypto asset frameworks mature, whether this “use only technology without holding assets” purely tool-based approach can be maintained long-term remains an industry question to watch.