Latest news with #STABLEAct
The Age
2 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The Genius move that could blow up in America's face
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and they don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Circle resumes its post-IPO rally after pullback, stablecoin issuer boosts Coinbase
Stablecoin issuer Circle resumed its rally on Thursday after a brief pullback this week. Shares were last higher by 8%, after losing about 15% earlier over the past two days amid heightened post-IPO volatility and as investors weigh speculation around crypto regulation and the upcoming Fed rate decision. With Circle still hot off its IPO, its investors may have rotated into Coinbase, which gained 15% in the same two days Circle fell. Coinbase, which began as a crypto exchange operator but has expanded its suite of crypto services, received a batch of price target increases this week from Wall Street including from Bernstein and Oppenheimer. Coinbase is the main distribution platform for USDC, the popular stablecoin issued by Circle. It receives half of the revenue generated from the interest earned on Circle's USDC reserves. It also makes 100% of the interest on any USDC held directly on its own platform. As awareness of Circle's story grows, investors are beginning to see how Coinbase could benefit from opportunites in the stablecoin space. Shares of Circle have rocketed more than 600% since its initial public offering on June 5. Meanwhile, Coinbase is on pace for a 50% monthly gain, its best month since November and its first three-month rally since the end of 2023. Shares added more than 2% on Thursday. Investors this week were watching Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who was on Capitol Hill for his semiannual testimony to Congress. Powell is facing increasing pressure both from President Donald Trump and multiple White House officials to lower interest rates, as well as two key Fed officials who have said they will likely favor a rate cut as soon as July – which could dampen Circle's earnings. The company earns interest income on the reserves backing USDC, which are primarily held in cash at banks and short-term U.S. Treasury securities. They're also watching progress on the GENIUS (short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins) Act, which seeks to establish a regulatory framework for the use of stablecoins. The bill passed the Senate last week and now heads to the House of Representatives. The House has its own stablecoin legislation in the works, called the STABLE Act.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
The US is about to bring crypto into the mainstream of finance
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The Act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the Act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
The Age
3 days ago
- Business
- The Age
The US is about to bring crypto into the mainstream of finance
There are already about $US250 billion of stablecoins on issue but, assuming the House endorses the bill (it has previously passed a slightly different version, named the STABLE Act) the legislation is likely to encourage a flood of new issuers. Amazon and Walmart and other retailers, large and small, are said to be preparing to issue their own tokens, along with other participants in payment chains. The major US banks have talked about creating one, the big tech companies would inevitably become involved and, as with the Trumps, there'd be a host of entrepreneurial types entering the sector. A report by Citigroup earlier this year said there could be $US3.7 trillion of stablecoins on issue by 2030, while a US Treasury analysis estimated there'd be $US2 trillion on issue by 2028. The potential benefits of wide use of stablecoins are obvious. They'd cut out the middlemen of finance – the crypto universe is a peer-to-peer one – making merchant fees, interchange fees and wire transfer fees increasingly redundant, along with the waiting for funds to be cleared. That explains retailers' interest in them, and the threat they pose to the major credit and debit card operators. US Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, is also enthusiastic about what they might mean for the US dollar and US Treasury market. Loading The dollar and US Treasury securities are already the most common assets used to back stablecoins and could be expected to be the assets of choice for tokens issued within the framework established by the Genius Act. That would provide a massive new source of demand for the dollar and Treasury securities, buttressing the dollar's global dominance and lowering the US government's cost of funds, or at least that's Bessent's theory. In practice, most of the funds to provide the dollar-for-dollar backing for the stablecoins would probably come from traditional finance sources – banks and money market funds being the most obvious. The flows of US dollar assets would be redirected, rather than new sources tapped. That's an important point, because it means deposits could be withdrawn from highly-regulated and, for deposits of less than $US250,000 in the US, insured environments into one that is far less onerously regulated and where the funds would not be insured. Unlike bank deposits, where the Federal Reserve Board backstops the system, there would be no lender of last resort (one of the BIS criticisms), fewer protections against the use of the tokens for illicit activities (another) and don't have the capacity that banks have to create money (yet another weakness identified by the BIS). Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. If the forecasts of the extent to which the stablecoin issuance could grow are correct, they could have an impact on the stability of the US and potentially other banking systems. They would convert largely retail deposits, which are generally stable and are covered by federal insurance, into more volatile and uninsured wholesale deposits. The regional banking crisis in the US in 2023 was triggered by a run on Silicon Valley Bank's wholesale deposits. Under the Genius Act, stablecoin issuers would be required to hold $US1 of easily cashable assets for each $US1 of stablecoins. It's relatively easy for the issuers to acquire US Treasury bills, or repurchase agreements backed by Treasury securities or cash to match new deposits. If there were, however, a sudden flood of redemption requests and a need to cash out the underlying assets urgently – if the issuer had to dump assets to raise cash in the face of what, in a bank, would be a 'run' – there would be a likelihood of losses on the face value of the Treasury bills and other assets in a forced sale. Some existing stablecoins have traded well below par. With no guarantor or lender of last resort, any liquidity event in a stablecoin would spark a frenetic scramble for the exit by investors, exacerbating the losses and raising the spectre of contagion for the rest of the sector. While the Genius Act makes it explicit that the stablecoins wouldn't be guaranteed by the government or have access to the Fed's facilities, if there were a sector-wide implosion and trillions of dollars of Treasury securities and bank deposits were being dumped into the markets, the pressure for the White House to intervene would be extreme. It would be even more extreme if the president at that moment had a multi-billion exposure to the stablecoin market. The Act prohibits members of Congress or the US executive branch from owning or issuing stablecoins, but an attempt by the Democrats to include the president and vice president in that prohibition failed. The other major criticism of the Act is that it could create a 'back to the future' moment, a return to a 19th century America where almost anyone could open a bank and issue their own currency as long as they had a dollar of collateral for each dollar they issued. Unlike a US dollar, which is trusted and accepted almost universally, there is no guarantee that a $US1 dollar stablecoin will actually be worth a dollar, or be accepted by everyone as a medium of exchange. Fiat currencies are fungible, crypto assets are not. Each stablecoin could be backed by a different mix of assets and therefore their vulnerability to an external event, or ability to respond to a run, will differ between issuers. Loading Short of real time continuous auditing of every stablecoin issuer, there can't be the same level of trust that there is in the traditional banking and payment systems. By endorsing and providing credibility for stablecoins, however, the US lawmakers are bringing crypto into the mainstream of the US banking and payments systems, fragmenting them to at least some degree and introducing a potential new source of instability.
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Keeping crypto clean: risk-based controls for stablecoins
June 24, 2025 - After several false starts, Congress is now on the cusp of enacting a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins — digital assets designed to maintain a stable value, typically by being "pegged" to a fiat currency, such as the U.S. dollar. Arguably, the primary functions of stablecoins to date have been to serve as a store of value, a currency for digital asset lenders and traders, and an on- and off-ramp into the crypto ecosystem. But many proponents envision a broader role for stablecoins in the payments system, including as a means to effectuate traditional payments and cross-border transactions. As the potential use cases for stablecoins continue to emerge, many financial institutions are considering how best to approach anti-money laundering (AML) and combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) compliance for stablecoin products in line with regulatory expectations. While early adopters have proposed a range of approaches, Congress is now considering two pieces of stablecoin legislation — the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act and Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy (STABLE) Act. Each bill would establish a federal regulatory scheme for payment stablecoins that would incorporate a tried-and-true approach to AML/CFT compliance for stablecoins by folding them into the existing U.S. regulatory framework established under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). With both the GENIUS and STABLE Acts on the legislative fast track, firms engaged in stablecoin activities, including issuers, administrators and exchanges, should consider whether their existing AML/CFT programs satisfy the BSA's extensive requirements and are sufficiently tailored to their business and risk profiles. Although stablecoins undoubtedly present illicit finance risks, those risks are simply the latest iterations of the same illicit finance risks presented by other financial products and payment rails, albeit with the technological attributes associated with digital assets. The risks can be effectively mitigated through risk-based policies, procedures and controls. This article explores certain key illicit finance risks that stablecoins and stablecoin transactions pose and how firms can seek to manage those risks. AML/CFT program requirements for stablecoin transactions Stablecoins present similar AML/CFT risks as other digital assets, including anonymity and pseudonymity, risks associated with decentralized finance and treatment of gas fees in permissionless blockchains, and potential for theft and other protocol manipulations. Unlike other digital asset classes, if a stablecoin issuer does not provide sufficient transparency regarding the reserves backing the stablecoin, it can be difficult to verify the nature and provenance of those assets or even whether the stablecoin is backed at all. An unscrupulous stablecoin issuer could use this lack of transparency to facilitate the laundering of illicitly obtained digital assets or engage in fraud by issuing stablecoins that are not fully backed by the assets the issuer claims to be holding as reserves. The growing popularity and versatility of stablecoins — and the increased governmental focus as evidenced by the GENIUS and STABLE Acts — mean firms that deal in stablecoins need to closely evaluate their compliance obligations. U.S. financial institutions that are subject to the BSA must satisfy a host of AML/CFT requirements, ranging from the adoption of an AML/CFT program containing certain regulatorily mandated elements (e.g., internal controls, independent testing, designation of a BSA officer, appropriate training and customer due diligence) to various recordkeeping and reporting requirements. We highlight below several of the more important components of an effective AML/CFT program and discuss how they may be most relevant in the stablecoin context: Customer identification program / customer due diligence: Under the BSA's customer identification program (CIP) rule, most financial institutions are required to have measures in place to verify the true identities of their customers. Even financial institutions that are not expressly subject to the CIP rule, such as money services businesses, tend to implement customer identification processes as a best practice and to help facilitate other compliance functions, such as transaction monitoring and sanctions screening. Beyond customer identification, certain financial institutions are subject to the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (FinCEN) customer due diligence (CDD) rule, which requires covered institutions to implement procedures to understand the nature and purpose of customer relationships, monitor for and report suspicious transactions on an ongoing basis, and identify the beneficial owners of certain legal entity customers. Financial institutions handling stablecoin transactions should consider ways they can adapt their current CIP frameworks or adopt new processes, as the case may be, to ensure they understand the true identity of their customers and counterparties. Traditional financial institutions adding stablecoin-related services, such as stablecoin custody or cross-border settlement with other financial institutions, may be able to leverage their existing CIP processes. Stablecoin issuers not presently subject to the CIP rule will need to consider how to create effective procedures for collecting and verifying know-your-customer (KYC) information, particularly if they become subject to affirmative CIP requirements. Critically, CIP requirements do not extend to third parties, such as the issuer of a stablecoin that an institution custodies for its customers. However, financial institutions should consider conducting risk-based diligence on third parties to align with regulators' expectations. Transaction monitoring: All U.S. financial institutions have an obligation to report suspicious activity to FinCEN, including cash transactions exceeding $10,000 and suspicious transactions exceeding $2,000. To comply with their reporting requirements, financial institutions generally implement transaction monitoring systems to flag potentially suspicious transactions or patterns of activity. This often includes monitoring for unusual or unexpected transaction volumes, transaction types and counterparties. Given the risks associated with stablecoin transactions, it may be difficult to verify whether a particular transaction meets the requirements for "suspicious" activity reporting (involvement of proceeds from criminal activity; evasion of BSA requirements; lack of apparent business purpose; and facilitation of criminal activity). To the extent they are not already doing so, financial institutions should consider incorporating blockchain analytics into their suspicious activity identification and investigation processes to capitalize on the public transparency of blockchain transactions by analyzing the context of transactions in which they are involved. A host of vendors offer sophisticated transaction monitoring software that financial institutions like banks have used for years. Specialist vendors in the digital asset space now offer advanced blockchain analytics tools designed to automatically detect patterns of suspicious activity, send real-time alerts, enable in-depth investigations and integrate into compliance team workflows. These tools leverage the public transaction ledgers on which digital asset transactions are recorded and other information gathered by the vendors. Traditional and nontraditional financial institutions offering stablecoin-related services should consider whether blockchain analytics could enhance their transaction monitoring program in line with a risk-based approach to AML/CFT compliance. Travel rule: The so-called Travel Rule generally requires that, for transmittals of funds of $3,000 or more, the sender's financial institution ensure that certain information regarding the transmittal, the sender and the beneficiary be included in the transmittal order at the time it is sent to the receiving institution. If the receiving institution is acting as an intermediary in the flow of funds, the receiving institution must include the same information in the transmittal order that it sends to the next receiving institution in the chain. The Travel Rule presents novel challenges for digital asset transactions, including those involving stablecoins, as blockchains are not designed to transmit the type of information the Travel Rule requires to accompany the transmittal. Where a financial institution engages in stablecoin transactions that are subject to the Travel Rule, it should consider whether certain of the messaging protocols that have been developed by the digital asset industry to facilitate Travel Rule compliance might be appropriate to ensure the financial institution can send and receive the required information securely. Key considerations will include the technical requirements of such platforms, the practicality of implementing and using them, and the regulatory expectations to which the institution may be subject. Conclusion Stablecoins offer a variety of potential benefits, such as a means to store value securely and weather periods of increased market volatility, process faster (if not real-time) transactions, and decrease costs. Like any financial product or service, stablecoins present potential risks. But those risks are becoming more manageable as compliance technology catches up to the pace of innovation. Vendors are continuously developing and improving technologies that will pave the way for more cost-effective AML/CFT compliance solutions for transactions facilitated through stablecoins. As regulators review and become comfortable with these solutions — and enact laws and regulations designed to regulate them — firms engaging in stablecoin activities or exploring the viability of such activities have better access to compliance tools specifically designed to manage the risks associated with digital assets. The onus remains with each financial institution to ensure its AML/CFT compliance program is appropriately tailored to control those risks. Greg Seidner and Nate Balk, associates with the firm, contributed to this article. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Skadden or its clients. Alexander C. Drylewski is a regular contributing columnist on blockchain and digital assets for Reuters Legal News and Westlaw Today.
