BlackRock’s Fink and Coinbase’s Armstrong: Crypto’s Policy Pivot Is Here

Crypto’s march into mainstream finance is increasingly a policy story, not a product story. On stage at the New York Times DealBook Summit with host Andrew Ross Sorkin, BlackRock’s Larry Fink and Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong framed the shift: institutions are leaning in, lawmakers are finally writing rules, and banks will likely adapt once incentives flip.

Armstrong argued that 2025 marks a turn from regulatory ambiguity to a clear playbook. He highlighted two pillars: a passed Genius Act and a bipartisan House market-structure bill now headed to the Senate, which he expects to advance. He was blunt about the prior Biden-era posture—saying it pushed activity offshore and harmed consumers—and he defended Coinbase’s support of Fairshake, noting that roughly 52 million Americans have used crypto and want clarity. The crypto-focused SuperPAC raised more than $78 million during the 2024 election cycle and is already looking toward the 2026 midterms.

Fink’s evolution captured the institutional mood. After once dismissing Bitcoin as a laundering index, he now sees a meaningful use case driven by repeated conversations with clients and government leaders. His framing: Bitcoin often functions as a “fear asset,” a hedge when people worry about security or about long-term asset debasement tied to deficits. Armstrong, pressed on the Buffett/Munger critiques—“nothing,” “rat poison,” doomed to zero—said the zero-outcome scenario is essentially off the table, describing Bitcoin as digital gold that exists outside the dollar-centric mindset the pair grew up with.

The most consequential thread, though, is the looming collision—and likely convergence—between banks and stablecoins. Asked about bank anxiety over deposits migrating to tokenized money, Armstrong called the pushback protection of margins more than consumer risk, accusing banks of lobbying for regulatory capture instead of competing on rates. His prediction: within a year or two, banks start paying yield on stablecoins inside their own products. It’s the classic Innovator’s Dilemma—those that embrace on-chain rails gain share; the rest leak deposits.

I think that’s broadly right. Once legislation codifies stablecoin issuance, reserve requirements, and disclosures, the economics force a rethink. Stablecoins settle near-instantly, can embed programmatic rewards, and can pass through money market yields with far less friction. If a bank can package a compliant, on-chain cash instrument—backed by short-duration Treasuries, custodied to bank standards, and integrated with existing treasury portals—it can defend deposits while expanding fee pools in payments, FX, and custody. The technology isn’t exotic; the hurdle is incentive alignment and risk frameworks. When the rulebook lands, product teams will ship.

There is a psychological layer, too. Fink’s “fear asset” lens and Armstrong’s “digital gold” framing both tap into defensive demand. That demand, combined with yield-bearing stablecoin cash equivalents, creates a barbell: scarce collateral on one end, tokenized dollars on the other. Banks that ignore the barbell risk losing high-value, rate-sensitive customers to on-chain options—first at the margin, then in chunks as liquidity deepens.

Tokenization, Coinbase’s move to Texas, and prediction markets also came up during the session, underscoring how much of finance is drifting on-chain. But the near-term hinge is legislative momentum. If the Senate codifies market structure and stablecoin standards, expect major banks to pilot white-labeled stablecoins, integrate on-chain settlement, and quietly compete on yield. Watch deposit betas, on-chain money market flows, and bank product roadmaps to see when the pivot turns into policy—and then into market share.