In recent years, the rapid growth of stablecoins, digital assets pegged to traditional currencies, has prompted U.S. lawmakers to consider regulatory measures to ensure financial stability and consumer protection. The bipartisan Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, introduced by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill Hagerty, Tim Scott, and Cynthia Lummis, aims to create a clear regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. 

Similarly, Congresswoman Maxine Waters unveiled bipartisan legislation in the House Financial Services Committee to establish comprehensive oversight for both depository and nonbank stablecoin issuers. These legislative efforts reflect a growing focus in Congress on regulating stablecoins to address concerns over consumer protection, financial system integrity, and the potential risks posed by the unregulated expansion of digital currencies.

What Each Bill Seeks to Accomplish

Both the GENIUS Act and the House Financial Services Committee’s stablecoin bill aim to establish a clear regulatory framework for stablecoins, though they take slightly different approaches in their oversight mechanisms and implementation strategies.

The GENIUS Act (Senate Bill)

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act is a bipartisan legislative proposal introduced on February 5, 2025, by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Tim Scott (R-SC), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). This bill aims to create a clear regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

Stated Goals:

• Consumer Protection: Ensuring that stablecoin issuers maintain one-to-one reserves and comply with U.S. anti-money-laundering and sanctions regulations to safeguard consumers.
• Promoting Innovation: Encouraging responsible innovation in the digital asset space to maintain U.S. leadership in blockchain technology and keep related jobs within the country.
• Financial Inclusion and Efficiency: Leveraging dollar-pegged stablecoins to enhance transaction efficiency, expand financial inclusion, and bolster the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency.

Key Provisions and Mechanisms:

1. Definition of Payment Stablecoin: Classifies a payment stablecoin as a digital asset used for payment or settlement, pegged to a fixed monetary value.
2. Licensing Procedures: Establishes clear processes for institutions seeking licenses to issue stablecoins, applicable to both banks and certain non-bank entities.
3. Reserve Requirements and Regulatory Standards: Implements reserve mandates and tailored regulatory standards for stablecoin issuers to ensure financial stability and consumer trust.
4. Regulatory Oversight Based on Market Capitalization:
   • Issuers with Over $10 Billion: Subject to federal oversight, with depository institutions regulated by the Federal Reserve and non-bank issuers overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
   • Issuers with $10 Billion or Less: Permits state-level regulation, provided the state’s regulatory framework aligns closely with federal standards.
5. Prohibition of Algorithmic Stablecoins: Bans the issuance of algorithmic stablecoins to prevent potential financial instability associated with such assets.
6. Supervisory and Enforcement Framework: Establishes clear supervisory, examination, and enforcement regimes with defined limitations to ensure compliance and protect consumers.

The Water’s Bill (U.S. House Financial Services Committee’s Stablecoin Bill)

On February 10, 2025, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, introduced new payment stablecoin legislation. This bill represents the culmination of three years of bipartisan negotiations, initially crafted with former Committee Chair Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and in collaboration with the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.

Stated Goals:

• Establish a Comprehensive Federal Framework: Create clear and consistent rules for stablecoin issuers, ensuring regulatory oversight at both federal and state levels.
• Enhance Consumer Protections: Prioritize safeguards to prevent fraud, scams, and financial instability within the crypto space.
• Strengthen Financial System Integrity: Implement anti-money laundering (AML) measures, counter-terrorist financing laws, and other compliance standards to prevent illicit activities.
• Maintain Banking and Commerce Separation: Prevent large tech firms from owning or controlling stablecoin issuers to avoid conflicts of interest.

Key Provisions and Mechanisms:

1. Regulatory Oversight for Issuers: Depository Institutions & Nonbank Issuers will be regulated, with the Federal Reserve playing a central supervisory role.
2. Strong Reserve Requirements: It requires stablecoin issuers hold sufficient reserves to back their tokens.
3. Prohibition on Big Tech Involvement: Non-financial commercial companies (e.g., Facebook, Google, X) are barred from owning or controlling a stablecoin issuer.
4. Enforcement of U.S. Laws & Sanctions Compliance: Stablecoin issuers must comply with U.S. anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) laws to prevents issuers from exploiting offshore loopholes to evade U.S. regulations (e.g., targeting issuers like Tether operating overseas).
5. Banning Individuals with Criminal Convictions: Individuals convicted of financial crimes, such as FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried, are prohibited from serving as executives or holding more than 5% ownership in a stablecoin issuer.
6. Consumer Protections for Digital Wallets: Requires strong risk management practices and financial resource requirements for wallet providers. The Federal Reserve granted examination and enforcement authority to oversee consumer protections.
7. Preservation of Existing Agency Authority: Ensures Treasury, CFPB, SEC, and CFTC maintain their regulatory powers over entities covered by the Act. Applies to stablecoin issuers, wallet providers, exchanges, broker-dealers, and market-makers engaged in stablecoin trading.

Key Differences Between the Two Stablecoin Bills

While both the GENIUS Act and Waters’ stablecoin bill aim to regulate stablecoins, they differ in their approaches to oversight, decentralization, and participation in the industry.

Approach to Regulation

• GENIUS Act: Takes a lighter-touch approach with a tiered regulatory structure. It assigns Federal Reserve oversight to issuers with over $10 billion in stablecoins, allowing state regulation for smaller issuers. The bill emphasizes fostering innovation and competition within the industry.
• Waters’ Bill: Establishes a stricter federal framework, with the Federal Reserve overseeing all issuers, regardless of market cap. It focuses on consumer protection, financial stability, and anti-money laundering compliance.

Stance on Decentralization and Industry Participation

• GENIUS Act: Allows greater decentralization, providing a flexible regulatory environment that encourages fintech firms and decentralized platforms.
• Waters’ Bill: Opposes industry centralization by barring Big Tech firms from owning stablecoin issuers. It also includes stronger AML and KYC measures, making it harder for decentralized or pseudonymous entities to participate.

Which Bill Offers More Benefits?

The GENIUS Act is more favourable to innovation as it allows smaller stablecoin issuers to operate under state regulations, reducing federal oversight and encouraging competition. By avoiding automatic Federal Reserve control, it creates an environment where fintech firms and decentralized platforms can thrive. 

In contrast, Waters’ bill imposes stricter federal oversight, increasing compliance costs and limiting new entrants, which may slow down crypto-native developments.

For market stability, Waters’ bill is the stronger option. It enforces strict reserve backing, gives the Federal Reserve a central role in oversight, and implements consumer protection measures to minimize financial risks. This prevents regulatory loopholes and enhances trust in the stablecoin market. The GENIUS Act, while still requiring reserves and AML compliance, leaves gaps that could allow regulatory arbitrage, potentially leading to the rise of under-collateralized stablecoins.

The impact of these bills varies across different players in the crypto ecosystem. The GENIUS Act benefits smaller stablecoin issuers, decentralized exchanges, and DeFi platforms by reducing barriers to entry and fostering innovation. However, larger issuers exceeding the $10 billion cap could face stricter oversight. 

Waters’ bill, on the other hand, favors well-established, well-funded stablecoin issuers and regulated exchanges, ensuring security and stability but creating challenges for smaller firms struggling with compliance costs.

Likelihood of Passage

The fate of the GENIUS Act and Waters’ Stablecoin Bill will largely depend on political alignment and industry support. The GENIUS Act has a stronger appeal among lawmakers who favour free-market policies and financial innovation. 

However, its reliance on state-level oversight and its more permissive stance toward stablecoin issuers may raise concerns among policymakers who prioritize financial stability and strong federal oversight.

In contrast, Waters’ bill has support from Democrats and regulators who view stablecoins as a systemic financial risk that requires strict federal oversight. It aligns with concerns raised by the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve about preventing financial instability and illicit finance risks. 

Traditional financial institutions and compliance-focused crypto firms are more likely to support this bill, as it reduces regulatory uncertainty and prevents competition from unregulated players. However, its strict provisions could alienate crypto-native firms and DeFi platforms, limiting broader industry support.

Final Thoughts

The GENIUS Act leans toward fostering innovation by allowing a mix of federal and state-level oversight, while Waters’ bill prioritizes stricter federal control to mitigate financial risks and prevent corporate dominance in the sector.

If the GENIUS Act passes, it could attract more crypto businesses to the U.S., encouraging fintech innovation while maintaining certain consumer protections. However, critics worry that its lighter regulatory approach might not be enough to prevent financial instability or bad actors from exploiting gaps in state oversight.

On the other hand, if Waters’ bill becomes law, stablecoin issuers will face a more rigid federal framework with stronger consumer protections and financial safeguards. While this could strengthen market stability and prevent illicit activities, it may also drive crypto firms offshore, stifling the U.S.’s competitive edge in digital finance.

Moving forward, the broader implications for U.S. crypto regulation hinge on whether lawmakers can strike a balance between financial security and technological innovation. A compromise between the two bills could create a framework that protects consumers without stifling growth, but political divisions and industry resistance may delay progress. 

Regardless of the outcome, stablecoin regulation will set the stage for broader crypto policies, shaping the U.S.’s role in the evolving digital economy.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be considered trading or investment advice. Nothing herein should be construed as financial, legal, or tax advice. Trading or investing in cryptocurrencies carries a considerable risk of financial loss. Always conduct due diligence. 

If you would like to read more articles like this, visit DeFi Planet and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and CoinMarketCap Community.

Take control of your crypto  portfolio with MARKETS PRO, DeFi Planet’s suite of analytics tools.”