An opinion column argues that digital payment innovations could drain deposits that sustain community credit.

A senior Alabama banker is raising concerns about the unintended consequences of emerging digital payment tools, arguing that innovations such as stablecoins could weaken the foundation of local lending if not carefully regulated.

In a guest opinion column published Monday by AL.com, Macke Mauldin, chief executive of Bank Independent, wrote that much of the public discussion around digital payments overlooks a basic principle of banking: deposits fund loans. When those deposits leave the system, he argued, the ability of community banks to lend diminishes.

“Most conversations about new digital payment tools often miss a crucial reality: when money exits community bank deposits, local lending is directly impacted,” Mauldin wrote, citing remarks by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that deposits are central to lending capacity in a fractional banking system.

Bank Independent, based in Sheffield, Ala., has about $3 billion in assets and reported $29 million in earnings in 2025, up from $25.8 million the year before, according to FDIC data. Like many community banks, it relies heavily on local deposits to finance loans to small businesses, farmers and homebuyers.

Mauldin drew a distinction between stablecoins themselves and the ways they are increasingly being used. Stablecoins, digital tokens designed to maintain a fixed value, can serve as efficient payment tools, he wrote. But problems arise when platforms begin offering “rewards” tied to balances held in stablecoins.

Story continued below…

“For most people, a payout tied to a balance is considered interest,” he wrote, warning that such offerings can blur the line between payment tools and traditional deposit accounts. Unlike bank deposits, he noted, stablecoins do not carry the same protections, a difference that may not be clear to consumers.

The implications could be significant for states like Alabama, where community banks play an outsized role in financing local economies. Deposits collected from households and small businesses are recycled into loans that support everything from agricultural operations to first-time home purchases.

Mauldin cautioned that widespread adoption of rewards-based stablecoin programs could lead to billions of dollars flowing out of the traditional banking system in the state. That shift, he argued, would translate directly into reduced lending capacity, with fewer projects financed and fewer opportunities for economic growth.

The concern comes as policymakers in Washington weigh how to regulate digital assets and payment systems. Mauldin described the current moment as an opportunity for lawmakers to clarify the distinction between payment technologies and deposit-like products.

“As Congress considers new digital payments legislation, lawmakers have the chance to close a loophole that allows platforms to present interest-like rewards,” he wrote.

Mauldin, who has also served in roles with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s Birmingham branch and state banking organizations, framed the issue as one of balance. Innovation in financial services, he acknowledged, has brought faster and more convenient tools for consumers. But he argued that those advances must be paired with safeguards that preserve the flow of credit into local communities.

“Stablecoins may become a regular part of daily payments,” he wrote. “But consumer protection and local lending cannot be afterthoughts.”

The stakes, he suggested, extend beyond financial technology and into the economic health of communities that depend on local institutions to sustain growth.