The "GENIUS Act" has established clear rules for the market, ultimately benefiting American consumers and market participants the most.

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Guest: Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy and Operations at Circle

Host: Laura Shin

Podcast Source: Unchained

Original Title: With the GENIUS Act Passed, Can Crypto Compete With Banks?

Broadcast Date: July 19, 2025

Key Points Summary

After years of hostility, the United States has finally passed its first federal law regarding the cryptocurrency industry.

The bipartisan stablecoin legislation, the "GENIUS Act," was signed into law by President Trump after a last-minute standoff in Congress. Although the bill was considered a "done deal," its passage became tumultuous this week, with Democrats raising objections due to Trump's connections to cryptocurrency, and the Freedom Caucus suddenly rebelling against provisions related to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Now that the bill has passed, what impact will it have? Who will benefit or be harmed?

In this episode, Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer at Circle and one of the key figures behind this legislation, explains the following:

• How the bill gained bipartisan support amid political tensions

• Why banks may think twice before issuing stablecoins

• Why Circle is applying for a national trust bank charter

Additionally, the episode discusses the debate surrounding interest-bearing stablecoins, how this bill fits into the broader financial regulatory framework, and whether American consumers and the dollar will benefit as a result.

Highlights of Insights

• The right to use currency should be as free as possible.

• The key point is that the cryptocurrency industry has finally achieved the long-desired legalization, a clear path in U.S. law and regulation, and the opportunity to compete.

• The significance of the "GENIUS Act" goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. It may be the first financial regulatory bill in U.S. history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and consumer protection, with the core focus on establishing clear rules for the market and building a rule-based competitive environment.

• The "GENIUS Act" has set clear rules for the market, ultimately making American consumers and market participants the biggest winners, while further solidifying the dollar's position in the global economy.

• The most important aspect of the "GENIUS Act" is the concept of international reciprocity, which empowers the U.S. Treasury to promote the American regulatory framework globally. This is crucial as it ensures that the U.S. can take a leading role in the formulation of international rules rather than passively accepting those set by other countries. This applies not only to cryptocurrency but also to the global use of stablecoins.

• Throughout my career, I have often represented U.S. interests at international institutions and government banking meetings. Although I am a representative of the private sector, this time, the U.S. finally has a formal voice in the formulation of these rules.

• There remains a significant gap in global financial access, and both the U.S. and other countries urgently need alternatives to payment systems. In the future, many companies may compete around data, viewing it as an asset. In this era where data is referred to as "the new oil," can blockchain become the "new tool" for carrying this data? This is a thought-provoking question.

• The fully reserved stablecoin model addresses a core issue from the early days of cryptocurrency—the regret consumers feel due to price volatility. This asset serves not only as a pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also as an important medium of exchange in the internet economy.

• The "GENIUS Act" and the upcoming U.S. market structure regulatory bill will gradually shift cryptocurrency and blockchain technology from obvious applications to deeper infrastructure, with their impacts becoming progressively evident.

• I hope that in the next five years, we can not only solidify the dollar's position as the core currency of the internet economy and leverage it as a strategic advantage for the U.S. in global competition but also enable more people to enjoy secure and reliable device-based financial services.

“Crypto Week” Exceeded Expectations

Laura:

This is a very important moment for the cryptocurrency industry. This week marks the end of what Congress has dubbed "Crypto Week." The "GENIUS Act," the first major cryptocurrency legislation in the U.S., will soon be signed into law by President Trump. This bill is the result of years of collaborative efforts by multiple members of Congress aimed at regulating the development of stablecoins. Before we started recording, you mentioned that you have been fighting for this for seven years. While many believed this bill could pass smoothly at the beginning of this administration, the actual process turned out to be much more tumultuous.

So, what led to this suspense, and how did it ultimately pass?

Dante:

Yes, if "Crypto Week" didn't have some political maneuvering and dramatic elements, it wouldn't feel complete. One of the most dramatic events this week was the opposition to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which indeed surprised many.

However, the key is the final outcome, which actually exceeded everyone's expectations. First, the "GENIUS Act" passed with over 300 votes in support, with 102 Democratic members voting alongside Republican members. The passage of this bill in the current highly polarized political environment in the U.S. is clearly a significant bipartisan achievement, reflecting national interests and the dollar's important position in the global economy. This is undoubtedly a tremendous accomplishment.

Additionally, two other bills also made significant progress. The "Clarity Act" is the House's response to legislation on cryptocurrency market structure, which also received broad bipartisan support and is expected to undergo in-depth discussions in the Senate. Another provision opposing CBDCs further indicates that the U.S. will actively participate in the global digital currency competition by regulating dollar stablecoins.

How the "GENIUS Act" Gained Bipartisan Support Amid Major Political Friction

Laura:

As you mentioned, this bill ultimately received broad support. However, during the process, we also saw many objections from Democrats regarding the Trump administration's business activities related to cryptocurrency, especially the initiative by the World Freedom Financial Company to launch its own stablecoin.

I am curious, how were Democrats persuaded to vote in greater numbers in support of this bill? After all, this seemed unlikely in the early stages.

Dante:

First, to be frank, cryptocurrency legislation has become a bipartisan issue in the U.S. This makes me jokingly say that I have facilitated unity in Washington twice in my career. The first time was when the Libra project was launched, and both Republicans and Democrats united in their opposition to it, leading to many hearings and controversies. Nevertheless, this opposition prompted an unexpected unity between the two parties.

Fast forward to today, this bill underwent numerous hearings, inter-agency meetings, and public consultations. The Biden administration issued an executive order on digital assets, while the Trump administration adopted a sincere and growth-oriented whole-of-government approach to promote the development of related technologies, especially in areas related to artificial intelligence. However, without properly addressing these key interests, including potential political differences, it would have been difficult for the "GENIUS Act" to gain the support of 18 Democratic senators in the Senate, let alone achieve such significant success in the House. Therefore, this is undoubtedly an important victory.

For us, the key is that the cryptocurrency industry has finally achieved the long-desired legalization, a clear path in U.S. law and regulation, and the opportunity to compete.

Why Dante Believes the Significance of the Bill Goes Beyond Cryptocurrency Itself

Laura:

Currently, Circle is widely regarded as one of the biggest winners of this bill. So, what specific provisions does this bill have regarding the regulation of which types of companies? Which companies are included, and which are excluded? Clearly, some companies can legally engage in stablecoin-related business in the U.S., while others must meet higher standards to enter this field. Could you briefly explain the impact of this bill on different types of participants and how it changes their operating models?

Dante:

First, I believe that the significance of the "GENIUS Act" goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. This may be the first financial regulatory bill in U.S. history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and consumer protection, with the core focus on establishing clear rules for the market and building a rule-based competitive environment. I am pleased to share some unique aspects of this bill.

First, it preserves the states' regulatory authority over banking and payments, which has been a significant obstacle in past attempts to legislate stablecoins. The U.S. financial system features "fintech federalism," where states independently regulate banks and payments. The "GENIUS Act" respects and continues this tradition. Additionally, under the provisions of the bill, banks, non-bank institutions, and credit unions can issue dollar-denominated payment stablecoins with a scale of $1 billion or more. These entities need to be incorporated into the federal regulatory framework, primarily overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), while also promoting the possibility of international competition.

The bill also contains many nuanced provisions, such as those regarding the portability of international products, ensuring that products compliant with similar regulatory structures in other countries can circulate freely between the U.S. and abroad. Notably, there is the so-called "Libra clause." According to this clause, if a non-bank or commercial company wishes to issue stablecoins, or if products that may be classified as Vanity Stablecoins (Note: Vanity Stablecoin is an emerging concept of stablecoins primarily used to meet personalized or brand-specific needs. It allows users to create stablecoins with unique identifiers based on their preferences or identities, typically based on blockchain technology.), they must not only establish an independent entity (similar to Circle, rather than a bank) but also address a series of antitrust issues and ultimately obtain approval from the Treasury's special committee. This sets important protective mechanisms for the market while also raising the entry threshold. For banks, if they plan to issue stablecoins under the "GENIUS Act," they must establish independent entities, separate from core banking operations, and manage the issuance and redemption of stablecoins in a completely different manner than traditional banks manage loans and credit creation. This regulatory approach is even more conservative than the so-called deposit token era.

This also raises an important question: Are banks willing to adopt a conservative asset-liability management strategy, avoiding risks, not using leverage, not making loans, and focusing solely on the issuance of stablecoins? Or would they prefer to compete in this niche market by providing core banking services? Overall, this bill has established clear rules for the market, and I believe the ultimate winners will be American consumers and market participants, while further solidifying the dollar's position in the global economy.

How Circle Plans to Compete with Banking Giants

Laura:

Let's talk about the movements of big banks. This week, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank are all working to launch stablecoins, or at least considering the issue. While this bill does not fully cover the actions of these banks, they are indeed operating in the same space as Circle. JPMorgan is also planning to launch deposit tokens. Currently, Circle's USDC is primarily used for trading and decentralized finance (DeFi), and it has become its largest commercial partner through collaboration with Coinbase. Additionally, USDC will be used by millions of Shopify merchants on Coinbase's Base network.

So, Circle currently seems more like a crypto-native project, while these banks have a larger distribution among non-crypto users, which is clearly a bigger market. How does Circle plan to compete with these big banks?

Dante:

That's an interesting question. I believe that in the ongoing discussions about competition among banks, non-banks, and even central banks regarding digital currencies, our operational model and long-term belief is that once very clear road rules are established, the tokenized form of currency is not a breakthrough; in fact, the breakthrough for banks and payments lies in the infrastructure.

Our long-term vision is to build an internet-based financial system that enables global connectivity of funds and financial services through blockchain technology. As you know, USDC is a multi-chain innovation aimed at promoting interoperability between different blockchains. It is dedicated to building a trusted financial infrastructure that can bring funds and financial services to areas that traditional banks and payment systems cannot reach.

This is not a strategy that opposes banks. In fact, our strategy heavily relies on collaboration with banks, leveraging the trust and security systems they have built in the real economy. The introduction of the "GENIUS Act" will undoubtedly trigger competition on multiple levels, which is a positive driving force for the U.S. economy and the entire market category. At the same time, it is also the best way to ensure that digital assets and cryptocurrencies can achieve scalable adoption, as all of this requires complete interoperability with the traditional financial system.

Another key point is that before the "GENIUS Act" was introduced, the U.S. lacked a clear regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and non-bank payment systems. Take the Libra project as an example; due to the lack of relevant laws in the U.S., Libra ultimately chose to establish itself in Switzerland, where it could be regulated as financial infrastructure. The implementation of the "GENIUS Act" provides the U.S. with an "America First" institutional framework while avoiding the limitations of "America going it alone." This allows companies like Circle, as well as other American businesses including traditional banks, to compete in the global market without worrying that their business models or internet-based digital dollars will be constrained by the rules of other countries. This is particularly important as the competition between stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) is increasingly becoming a focal point in the global financial arena. Discussions over the past week indicate that many countries and financial institutions are trying to reduce their dependence on the dollar while seeking alternative payment systems.

Laura:

Okay, I want to confirm one of your points. I initially thought this bill was mainly aimed at domestic business activities in the U.S., but from your description, it seems it could also impact the use of stablecoins in other countries?

Dante:

Absolutely correct. This is actually an important provision in the "GENIUS Act," which was initially proposed in the House of Representatives. You may recall that there were different proposals regarding stablecoin legislation between the House and the Senate. The bill proposed by the House was called the "Stable Act," while the Senate's proposal was the "GENIUS Act."

Ultimately, the "GENIUS Act" incorporated many of the improvements from the House version, thus gaining the support of 102 Democratic members. The most important point among these is the concept of international reciprocity, which empowers the U.S. Treasury to promote the American regulatory framework globally. This is crucial because it ensures that the U.S. can take a leading role in the formulation of international rules rather than passively accepting those set by other countries. This applies not only to cryptocurrencies but also to the global use of stablecoins. For me personally, this is also an important milestone. Throughout my career, I have often represented U.S. interests at international institutions and government banking meetings. Although I am a representative of the private sector, this time, the U.S. finally has a formal voice in the formulation of these rules.

What Circle Hopes to Achieve by Applying for a National Trust Bank Charter

Laura:

At the end of June this year, Circle submitted an application to create a national trust bank in the U.S. This will allow Circle to directly manage its reserves and provide cryptocurrency custody services to institutional clients. Please elaborate on Circle's plans for this national trust bank.

Dante:

Yes, custody and safeguarding services are part of our plan. Additionally, with the implementation of the "GENIUS Act," non-bank stablecoin issuers in the U.S. must obtain a charter and trust license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Therefore, our initiative is clearly a proactive move to prepare for future regulatory requirements. This strategy is not surprising, as it aligns with how we operate under the regulatory framework of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) in Europe.

Our business goal has always been to pursue excellence. When Europe spent years developing the MiCA framework, we realized we needed to establish a branch in Europe. To this end, we chose France and obtained an electronic money license, ensuring that Circle's USDC and euro stablecoin became among the first products compliant with MiCA regulations. Therefore, it is logical for us to adopt a similar model as U.S. regulations evolve.

Laura:

I also want to ask a question about competing with big banks. Fortune recently reported that JPMorgan plans to charge fintech companies for using its data. Suppose there is a fintech company, like Plaid, that connects Coinbase (your largest partner) with customer banks. If that bank is JPMorgan, then the previously free data interface might start to incur charges. Do you think this change would hinder Circle's development? If similar bank charges occur, how would Circle respond?

Dante:

This is indeed a complex issue, and it is currently difficult to predict the specific impact. However, one thing is clear: the legitimacy of currency usage has been a contentious issue for years, and this is one of the reasons I entered this industry. I have always believed that the right to use currency should be as free as possible.

Moreover, the payment methods of traditional banking systems are akin to the era of landline telephones, where the longer the call, the higher the cost. Therefore, in the future, many companies may compete around data, viewing it as an asset. In this era where data is referred to as "the new oil," can blockchain become the "new tool" for carrying this data? This is a thought-provoking question.

Why Financial Privacy is So Important in the U.S. System

Dante:

The demand for financial privacy in American society is deeply rooted, which is one of the main reasons for opposing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). However, truly safeguarding financial privacy is not easy; it can only be achieved by establishing clear rules and a fair competitive system that can safely and privately provide users with comprehensive financial services. Cryptocurrency wallets play an important role in this process, providing users with secure tools to store and manage cryptocurrencies while protecting personal privacy.

Currently, stablecoins are achieving this goal through the dollar, while mobile digital wallets, open-source wallets, and blockchain infrastructure collectively support this competitive system, enabling it to comprehensively cover every user. In a world after the passage of the "GENIUS Act," consumers will have more choices, allowing them to enjoy financial services while protecting their privacy. If some large institutions attempt to compete by monetizing data, the implementation of the "GENIUS Act" will provide consumers with alternatives, allowing them to do so without sacrificing their privacy.

What is the Difference Between Deposit Tokens and Stablecoins

Laura:

Recently, the topic of deposit tokens has begun to gain attention, and I was previously unfamiliar with this concept. Each unit of a deposit token represents a portion of a bank deposit. So, how does it differ in use from stablecoins? Do deposit tokens have the potential for widespread application? In what scenarios might they be used? Are they in competition with stablecoins, or do they simply differ in their uses? How should consumers view the two?

Dante:

This question is indeed somewhat complex. As a supporter of the movement against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), I have conducted in-depth research on this and supported my views with some academic papers. There is indeed some similarity between deposit tokens and stablecoins. The "GENIUS Act" allows banks to issue payment stablecoins but stipulates that payment stablecoins issued by banks are the only legal products. The legislation presents some key requirements for payment stablecoins.

If I were a board member of a large bank, I would focus on the following issues: first, the issuer cannot directly pay yields, meaning this digital currency will not compete with traditional deposit business but is a form of fully reserved digital currency. This also raises a question—if a deposit token is issued by a failing bank (for example, Credit Suisse), would you accept it? Because if a deposit token fails to comply with the provisions of the "GENIUS Act," it could become a digital representation of the risks on the bank's balance sheet. This means that your right to redeem it at face value for dollars could be affected by factors such as the bank's loan, credit risk, and term risk. Therefore, the "GENIUS Act" requires banks to issue stablecoins through independent entities and independent balance sheets to ensure their safety.

In addition, the "GENIUS Act" has completely put an end to the era of misleading stablecoins. For example, cases like Terra Luna can no longer be traded in the U.S. market. If stablecoin issuers fail to prove the authenticity of their assets (i.e., through the "Jerry Maguire test." Note from Deep Tide TechFlow: This is a metaphor commonly used in entrepreneurship, investment, or product development, originating from the classic movie "Jerry Maguire." The protagonist loses most of his clients for sticking to his principles but ultimately wins a loyal client. Here, the "Jerry Maguire test" can be understood as a key step in verifying market demand and early ecosystem support, serving as an important indicator of whether a stablecoin can establish itself in a competitive blockchain ecosystem.), they may even face criminal penalties. The "GENIUS Act" imposes strict requirements for trust, transparency, and auditability, and holds responsible parties criminally liable. This ensures that crypto dollar counterfeit coins will no longer appear under the guise of stablecoins and ultimately collapse.

What Actions Might Circle Take When Interest-Bearing Stablecoins Are Finally Approved

Laura:

I know that stablecoins themselves have certain centralized characteristics, but they are completely different from the case of Terra Luna. However, I want to discuss interest-bearing stablecoins. Clearly, current laws do not allow for the existence of such stablecoins, and this regulation does not fully align with consumer interests. In some ways, this even seems somewhat counterintuitive, as this regulation is actually driven by the Democrats. However, this is a positive development for Circle and similar companies. I understand that the current law will not change in the short term, but in the future, when consumers realize that this regulation is not friendly to them, it may drive adjustments in related policies. If the law allows for the emergence of interest-bearing stablecoins, Circle may need to attract more customers through competition, such as offering yields to consumers. While this may not be your current focus, I believe this situation could occur in the future.

Dante:

We have indeed considered this issue. Let me share our perspective. The fully reserved stablecoin model addresses a core problem from the early days of cryptocurrency—the regret consumers feel due to price volatility. Bitcoin has gradually lost its function as a medium of exchange on the internet due to its extreme price fluctuations and appreciation, and is now defined as digital gold rather than a daily consumption asset. For example, the "Bitcoin Pizza Day" event is a typical case that spurred the demand for fully reserved stable assets. **These assets are not only the pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also an important medium of exchange in the *internet economy.*

Currently, both MiCA and the "GENIUS Act" prohibit stablecoin issuers from directly paying yields to token holders, but we believe that yields are a key feature of cryptocurrencies. Through secondary markets, DeFi, and lending functions associated with programmable currencies, yields can be realized. The "GENIUS Act" prohibits regulated issuers from directly paying yields, but yields, as an innovation in the secondary market, are one of the core functions in this field. Just as physical dollars create loans and credit on bank balance sheets, **fully reserved stablecoins also become an important foundational layer of the *internet economy.* Unlike traditional funds, consumers can enjoy other advantages of funds, such as liquidity unaffected by bank holidays, programmability, composability, and the flexibility of DeFi. If the funds themselves are not fully reserved or carry risks, these advantages cannot be realized. This is also why we support the "GENIUS Act" and MiCA, as these two proposals have become the legal foundation for stablecoins in Europe and the U.S.

Furthermore, the U.S. needs further regulatory oversight of the crypto market structure to address other issues in the market, such as how to define commodities, securities, and digital collectibles, and how to handle integrated economic activities that span banking, payment regulation, and capital markets. I believe that innovations in the secondary market and the yield function of stablecoins will usher in new development opportunities in this field.

Laura:

I have a few more questions regarding Circle's recent IPO. The stock price was about $234 an hour ago, far above the IPO price of $31.

**I am curious about the atmosphere within the company since the **IPO, as I think there may be a gap between the expectations before the IPO and the actual results, at least in the cryptocurrency field. Is this your feeling as well? Or were you shocked?

Dante:

Unfortunately, I cannot speak on behalf of the entire Circle regarding this question. I can't say much about the stock price or the IPO itself, but becoming a publicly traded company has always been a long-term goal for Circle. As a public company, we remain focused on the core principles that drive the company's growth, which is long-term development. This may be the most I can share.

However, I believe the real news focus right now is the "GENIUS Act." In fact, I am currently heading to the White House to attend a signing ceremony for a law that I have personally invested a lot of effort into. This moment is significant not only for the company but also for the entire country and market, as we finally gain legal clarity in the U.S.

How This New Law Might Affect Ordinary Americans and Their Finances

Laura:

One last question. Looking ahead to the next five years, how do you think this law will impact the lives of ordinary Americans, consumer rights, and the U.S.'s position in the world?

Dante:

I once wrote an article titled "How We Change the World with Blockchain When It Is No Longer a Topic." I owe thanks to you, Laura Shin, as you were the editor at Forbes who gave me this opportunity. I believe that **the "GENIUS Act" and the upcoming U.S. market structure regulatory bill will gradually shift cryptocurrencies and *blockchain technology* from obvious applications to deeper foundational infrastructure, and their impact will gradually become apparent.**

I hope that in the next five years, we can not only solidify the dollar's position as the core currency of the internet economy and leverage it as a strategic advantage for the U.S. in global competition, but also enable more people to enjoy secure and reliable device-based financial services. These services will not only include simple payment functions but also cover complex financial activities such as savings, loans, and credit, bringing greater convenience and benefits to consumers. Thus, the U.S. has officially entered this field.

Just yesterday, I attended a global conference where I interacted with about forty to fifty representatives from international regulatory agencies and central banks. This is the first time in my seven years working in this field that I can confidently say that the U.S. is establishing a legal framework for the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry, no longer relying solely on the performance of the private sector to represent the country.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。