The average savings account in the United States pays one basis point of interest, Matt Hougan said, and that is the number he holds against the banks lobbying to change the crypto market-structure bill.
The banks' stated worry is deposit flight if stablecoins can pay interest. Hougan's reply is that the bill they are fighting would restrict interest-paying stablecoins more than the law already on the books does, so the position does not follow from its own premise.
"That money belongs to us, not to the banks."
Hougan is chief investment officer of Bitwise Asset Management, a crypto asset manager, and was on the day the Senate was due to vote on the Clarity Act, with Bitcoin falling on pre-vote nerves.
The full segment is covered here so you can skip it.
Here are the 4 arguments that matter.
👤 Guest: Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer of Bitwise Asset Management, a crypto asset manager
🧩 Other segments: Dan Niles of Niles Investment Management; Marc Casper, Chairman and CEO of Thermo Fisher Scientific; John Collins, global co-head of M&A at Morgan Stanley; and CBOE's Oliver Renick on gold options
📰 Published: 15 September 2026 on the Squawk on the Street feed
🟣 Apple Podcasts | 🔗 Episode page | ⏱️ 4 min
Key Takeaways
Nobody currently regulates spot crypto, and the bill's whole job is to say who does
Not the jurisdiction question between the SEC and the CFTC, and not disclosure rules for centralized exchanges
The average US savings account pays one basis point, which is Hougan's answer to the deposit-flight argument
Killing the bill leaves the GENIUS Act in force, which he says is more permissive on stablecoin interest, not less
He does not expect it to pass, and says the block is ethics politics rather than policy
He concedes the money-laundering point and argues the alternative is worse
His list of what the previous enforcement-led approach produced: FTX, Terra Luna, Celsius
1. What the Bill Would Settle
The segment opened on the vote itself: the Senate was due to vote on the Clarity Act that afternoon, needing 60 votes to advance it back to the House, after Senate Republicans released new text on Sunday night with an ethics provision the Democrats had demanded. Bitcoin was falling on pre-vote nerves. Hougan was asked what passage would actually do for the industry.
His starting point is that there is no rulebook at all. "Look there is no clarity on regulation of crypto in the u.s."
Two specific gaps were named. Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has jurisdiction over spot crypto assets, and whether centralized exchanges have to make disclosures — "No one is directly regulating that."
So the industry is operating by feel. The act, he said, would make a clear pathway to move forward, allow more investment from Wall Street and "push us toward a blockchain based financial future."
2. What Passage Would Unleash
Asked whether that certainty would release institutional capital, Hougan gave a broader answer than the question.
He expects investment into building on blockchain, not only into the assets themselves — "I think it would unleash tremendous investment from the institutional world into building on blockchain."
The stakes as he frames them are infrastructural. "I think it would position America to lead financial market infrastructure for the next 50 years."
He does not expect it that day. "I'm not sure we're going to get it today." He sees a route forward through regulatory action instead.
His claim for what passage would do is that it would be good for investors, make the world safer, make crypto more secure and pull more investment into the space.
3. Politics Ahead of Policy
Asked to explain the obstacle — what Democrats want as concessions, and whether it is really about the President's exposure to crypto — Hougan put it down to politics.
The concession being fought over is ethics. How far to limit executives, senators and even judges from operating in the crypto industry.
His characterization of what is already on the table: the Republicans put forward the most aggressive ethics package ever considered in federal law, and the first that would constrain the executive branch.
He does not think the Democrats want a deal. They say it is not enough, and "I don't think they're interested in this passing."
His verdict: "I think they're putting politics ahead of policy. I think that's bad for America."
4. The Banks' Basis Point
The interviewer brought in the banks, which want the Clarity Act but with protections they say would level the playing field and prevent deposit flight, and cited an interview with Wells Fargo chief executive Charlie Scharf the previous week, who said the bill as written is unsafe for small banks.
Hougan's first point is that the banks' position works against itself. If the bill fails, the law in force is the GENIUS Act, "which makes it easier for them to pay interest rates" on stablecoins — so blocking the more restrictive bill is not a logical way to restrict interest.
His own position is about ownership. "I would add, more broadly, why shouldn't we get interest on our stablecoin assets? That money belongs to us, not to the banks."
On the size of the deposit-flight risk: "All the studies, all the economic data suggests that's going to be minor at best and probably not happen at all."
The number he uses to test their sincerity is what they pay now. "If they offered interest on savings accounts more than one basis point, which is the average interest payment on a savings account today in America, then I would take their concerns seriously."
So he reads it as competitive rather than prudential. "I think more broadly, the banks are just concerned about competition. They're doing this for regulatory capture."
On money laundering he agreed with the banks, then reframed the choice. "We absolutely need more aggressive protections against money laundering." But the alternative to regulating the industry is not regulating it, and the previous approach — which he called the Warren Gensler playbook — is what produced FTX, Terra Luna and Celsius.
Bonus Insights
He would take the regulatory route if the legislative one fails. Asked what happens without the bill, he said there is a pathway forward through regulatory efforts alone, which is not the position a trade body usually takes the day of a vote.
He named the previous approach after the two people who ran it — the Warren Gensler playbook — and treated the collapses that followed as its output rather than as isolated frauds.
The interviewer's questions came from the banks' side throughout, including a Wells Fargo chief executive's on-air position from the week before, which is what produced the basis-point answer.
Hougan's bottom line is that the argument over the Clarity Act is not about safety on either side: the Democrats are negotiating ethics rather than policy, and the banks are defending a deposit base they currently pay one basis point to keep.
Products, Companies & Tools Mentioned
Bitwise Asset Management (Hougan's firm, a crypto asset manager, arguing for passage)
Wells Fargo (Charlie Scharf's position, put to Hougan: the bill as written is unsafe for small banks because of deposit-flight risk)
Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (The jurisdictional question over spot crypto assets that the bill would settle)
Books & Resources Mentioned
The Clarity Act (The market-structure bill the Senate was voting on that afternoon, needing 60 votes to advance back to the House)
The GENIUS Act (The stablecoin law already in force, which Hougan says is more permissive on paying interest than the bill the banks are fighting)
Watch the full episode:
If this was worth your time, send it to someone who has to have a view on this.
Get the latest market chatter as it happens: