Discover top fintech news and events!
Subscribe to FinTech Weekly's newsletter
Read by executives at JP Morgan, Coinbase, Blackrock, Klarna and more
You can almost see the hesitation in the room.
Sixty-five senators voted to advance stablecoin legislation this week—a procedural step, yes, but one that brings the U.S. closer than ever to defining what, exactly, digital money is allowed to be.
That hesitation wasn’t about the tech. Everyone in the room knows stablecoins are no longer experimental. They’re used in billions of dollars of daily transactions. They're core infrastructure for trading and settlement in crypto markets. And increasingly, they’re showing up in fintech apps used by ordinary consumers—apps tied to real bank accounts, debit cards, and even payroll systems.
The hesitation was political. Because the timing of this bill—officially called the GENIUS Act—couldn’t be messier.
On one hand, stablecoin regulation has been years in the making. It’s not a partisan issue, at least not in the abstract. Lawmakers on both sides have acknowledged that the market has outgrown its patchwork oversight. That’s the reason this vote passed: not because anyone suddenly loves crypto, but because ignoring it has become riskier than doing something about it.
But the context matters. It always does. Especially when the story includes a U.S. president, a $2 billion foreign-backed crypto deal, and a memecoin dinner that looked more like a luxury influencer activation than a financial roundtable.
Crypto at the Center of Power
Here’s what makes the stablecoin debate different from previous crypto battles: this time, the asset in question is built for predictability. Not speculation. Not hype.
Stablecoins don’t try to replace fiat—they mimic it. They exist to be spent, transferred, and stored without volatility. Their use case is boring on purpose. And that’s exactly why they’ve become dangerous.
Because when digital dollars start moving across borders without going through traditional rails—when people in unstable economies use tokens backed by U.S. Treasuries instead of local currency—when businesses start accepting stablecoins instead of bank-issued funds—then monetary policy itself becomes the question.
And the government is starting to notice.
The Illusion of Neutral Infrastructure
There’s a long-standing narrative in crypto: “We’re just building infrastructure.” It's how exchanges, wallets, and issuers have explained their neutrality for over a decade. It’s not our job to decide how people use these tools, the thinking goes. We just provide access.
That logic is breaking down. When a stablecoin’s backing includes exposure to the U.S. financial system—and its collapse could ripple into traditional markets—the infrastructure becomes the story. And now, Congress is trying to draw a line.
But it’s not just a technical exercise. It’s a question of authority. Who approves the reserves? Who audits the issuers? Which agency gets the final word when something breaks?
That’s why the GENIUS Act matters. It’s not just about stablecoins. It’s about jurisdiction.
A Regulation Debate With No Clean Exit
Let’s not pretend this will be smooth. The current version of the bill faces amendments, opposition, and a lack of alignment between chambers. The House hasn’t advanced its own version yet. And within the Senate, lawmakers are still arguing over which regulator should take the lead.
Meanwhile, the timing has drawn fresh criticism. Reports of Trump family ventures tied to foreign crypto financing have cast a shadow over what might otherwise be a relatively bipartisan step. For some, the bill now looks like a political shield. For others, it’s a long-overdue necessity, no matter the headlines.
And yet, it moves forward.
Why Fintech Should Be Paying Close Attention
For fintech companies building with stablecoins—whether for remittances, yield, or payments—the outcome of this bill matters in more ways than one.
First, it would formalize what kind of stablecoin use is allowed inside regulated environments. That unlocks potential partnerships with banks and financial institutions still wary of exposure. Second, it could narrow the field of compliant issuers, creating competitive advantages for platforms that can meet regulatory thresholds. And third, it will set the tone for future legislation covering other digital financial products—tokenized deposits, programmable money, and more.
But above all, it signals a shift in how Washington views the relationship between code and capital. For years, fintech operated in a grey zone—close enough to finance to be disruptive, but far enough to avoid direct intervention. Stablecoins have collapsed that gap.
Stability Comes at a Cost
The irony here is that stablecoins were created to be the most boring part of the crypto universe. And now they’re at the center of a legislative storm.
Their utility, their speed, their global reach—all of that makes them useful. But usefulness breeds attention. And attention invites control.
That’s the lesson of this week’s Senate vote. In 2025, no technology touching money remains neutral. Not even the ones designed to stay still.
