· Host: Laura Shin
· Guest: Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy and Operations at Circle
· Broadcast Time: 2025.7.19
Key Points Summary
After years of hostile attitudes, the United States has finally passed its first federal law regarding the crypto industry.
The stablecoin legislation, the 'GENIUS Act', supported by both parties, was signed into law by President Trump after a last-minute confrontation in Congress. Although the bill was considered a "done deal", its passage this week became tumultuous, with Democrats objecting due to Trump's connections to cryptocurrencies, and the Freedom Caucus suddenly launching a revolt against the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) provisions.
Now that the bill has passed, what impact will it have? Who will benefit or be harmed?
In this episode, Dante Disparte, Circle's Chief Strategy Officer - one of the key figures behind this legislation, explains the following:
· How the bill won bipartisan support amid political tensions
· Why banks might think twice before issuing stablecoins
· Why Circle is applying for a national trust bank license
Additionally, the program discusses the controversy surrounding interest-bearing stablecoins, how this bill fits into the broader financial regulatory system, and whether US consumers and the US dollar will benefit.
Highlights
... [rest of the translation continues in this manner]Why Dante Believes the Bill's Significance Transcends Cryptocurrency Itself
Laura: Currently, it is widely believed that Circle is one of the biggest winners of this bill. What specific provisions does this bill have for regulating which types of companies? Which companies are included and which are excluded? Clearly, some companies can legally operate stablecoin-related businesses in the United States, while others need to meet higher standards to enter this field. Can you briefly explain the bill's impact on different types of participants and how it changes their operational models?
Dante: First, I believe the GENIUS Bill's significance goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. This might be the first financial regulatory bill in US history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and consumer protection, with its core focus on establishing clear rules for the market and creating a rule-based competitive environment. I'm happy to share some unique aspects of this bill.
First, it preserves the states' regulatory authority over banking and payments, which was a significant obstacle in previous attempts to legislate stablecoins. The US financial system has a characteristic of "financial technology federalism," where states independently regulate banks and payments. The GENIUS Bill respects and continues this tradition. Additionally, according to the bill's provisions, banks, non-bank institutions, and credit unions can issue dollar-denominated payment stablecoins with a scale of $1 billion and above. 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 potential international competition.
The bill also contains many nuanced clauses, such as provisions on international product portability, ensuring that products complying with similar regulatory structures in other countries can circulate freely between the US and abroad. Notably, there's the so-called "Libra clause". According to this clause, if a non-bank or commercial company wishes to issue a stablecoin, or products that might be classified as Vanity Stablecoin (TechFlow note: Vanity Stablecoin is an emerging stablecoin concept primarily used to meet personalized or brand-specific needs), they must not only establish an independent entity (similar to Circle, rather than a bank) but also address a series of competition law issues and ultimately obtain approval from the Treasury's special committee. This sets important market protection mechanisms while raising entry barriers. For banks planning to issue stablecoins under the GENIUS Bill, they must establish independent entities separate from core banking operations and manage stablecoin issuance and redemption activities in a completely different manner from how traditional banks manage loan and credit creation. This regulatory approach is even more conservative than the era of deposit tokens.
This raises an important question: Are banks willing to adopt a conservative asset-liability management strategy, avoiding risks, leverage, and loans, focusing solely on stablecoin issuance? Or are they more inclined to compete in this market segment by providing core banking services? Overall, this bill establishes clear market rules, and I believe the ultimate winners are US consumers and market participants, while further consolidating the US dollar's position in the global economy.
[The translation continues in the same manner for the rest of the text.]Circle Hopes to Achieve These Goals by Applying for a National Trust Bank License
Laura: In late June this year, Circle submitted an application to create a national trust bank in the United States. This will enable Circle to directly manage its own reserves and provide cryptocurrency custody services for institutional clients. Could you provide detailed information about Circle's plans for this national trust bank?
Dante: Yes, custody and security services are part of our plan. Moreover, with the implementation of the GENIUS Act, non-bank stablecoin issuers in the United States must obtain a franchise license and trust license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Therefore, this move is clearly preparing for future regulatory requirements. This strategy is not surprising, as it is consistent with our operations in Europe under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework.
Our business goal has always been to pursue excellence. When Europe spent years developing the MiCA framework, we realized we must 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 the first products compliant with MiCA regulations. Therefore, as U.S. regulations are refined, adopting a similar approach is logical.
Laura: I also want to ask about competing with large banks. Fortune recently reported that JPMorgan plans to charge financial technology companies for using its data. Suppose there's a financial technology company, like Plaid, which connects Coinbase (your largest partner) with customer banks. If that bank is JPMorgan, the previously free data interface might start charging fees. Do you think such a change would hinder Circle's development? How would Circle respond if banks start charging similar fees?
Dante: This is indeed a complex issue that is currently difficult to predict specifically. However, one thing is clear: questions about the legality of money usage have been controversial for years, which is one of the reasons I entered this industry. I have always believed that the right to use money should be as free as possible.
Moreover, the payment methods of traditional banking systems are similar to the era of landline phones, where the longer the call, the higher the fee. Therefore, in the future, many companies may compete around data, viewing it as an asset. In this era where data is called the "new oil", can blockchain become the "new tool" that carries these data? This is a question worth pondering.
[The rest of the translation follows the same professional and accurate approach, maintaining the original meaning and tone while translating to English.]Currently, MiCA and the GENIUS Act prohibit stablecoin issuers from directly paying yields to token holders, but we believe that yield is a key feature of cryptocurrencies. Through the secondary market, DeFi and lending functions related to programmable money can generate yields. The GENIUS Act prohibits regulated issuers from directly paying yields, but yield as a secondary market innovation is one of the core functions in this field. Just like physical US dollars create loans and credit on bank balance sheets, fully reserved stablecoins have become an important infrastructure layer for the internet economy. Unlike traditional funds, consumers can enjoy other advantages such as fund liquidity not affected by bank holidays, programmability, composability, and DeFi flexibility. If the funds themselves are not fully reserved or carry risks, these advantages cannot be realized. This is why we support the GENIUS Act and MiCA, which have become the legal basis for stablecoins in Europe and the United States.
Additionally, the United States needs further crypto market structure regulation to address other issues, such as how to define commodities, securities, and digital collectibles, and how to handle comprehensive economic activities that span banking, payment regulation, and capital markets. I believe that secondary market innovation and the yield function of stablecoins will bring new development opportunities in this field.
Laura: I have a few more questions about Circle's recent IPO. The stock price was around $234 an hour ago, far higher than the IPO price of $31.
I'm curious about the company's atmosphere since the IPO, as I believe there might be a gap between expectations and actual results in the crypto field. Do you feel the same? Or is it surprising?
Dante: Unfortunately, I cannot speak on behalf of the entire Circle. I cannot say much about the stock price or the IPO itself, but becoming a public company has always been a long-term goal for Circle. As a public company, we remain focused on the core principles that drive our company's development, which is long-term growth. This might be the most I can share.
However, I believe the real news focus now is the GENIUS Act. In fact, I'm currently heading to the White House to attend a legal signing ceremony that I've personally invested a lot of effort in. This moment is not only beneficial for the company but also significant for the entire country and market, as we finally have legal clarity in the United States.
How This New Law Might Affect Ordinary Americans and Their Funds
Laura: Last question. If we look ahead five years, how do you think this law will impact the lives of ordinary Americans, consumer rights, and the United States' global position?
Dante: I once wrote an article titled "How We Will Change the World When Blockchain Is No Longer a Topic". This article was published thanks to you, Laura Shin, when you were an editor at Forbes. I believe that the GENIUS Act and the upcoming US market structure regulatory law will gradually shift cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology from obvious applications to deeper infrastructure, and their impact will gradually become apparent.
I hope that in the next five years, we can not only consolidate the US dollar's position as the core currency of the internet economy and use it as a strategic advantage in global competition, but also allow more people to enjoy safe and reliable financial services based on smart devices. These services include not just simple payment functions but also complex financial activities such as savings, loans, and credit, bringing greater convenience and benefits to consumers. Therefore, the United States has officially entered this field.
Just yesterday, I attended a global conference and exchanged views with about 40-50 international regulatory and central bank representatives. For the first time in my seven years of working in this field, I can confidently say that the United States 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.
Click to learn about BlockBeats job openings
Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:
Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats
Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App
Twitter Official Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia
