Source: Digital Legal Currency Research Society
On April 3, the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee passed a federal regulatory bill for stablecoins with 32 votes in favor and 17 votes against.
The bill was proposed by Congressmen Bryan Steil (Republican of Wisconsin) and French Hill (Republican of Arkansas) in March 2025, namely the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy Act (STABLE Act).
What kind of stablecoin regulation does the STABLE Act establish?
According to the information, the STABLE Act attempts to establish a clear and exclusive compliance framework applicable to "Payment Stablecoins". There are several key points:
1. Focus on "Payment Stablecoins" and clarify the regulatory objects
The STABLE Act clarifies the core objects of regulation: US dollar-anchored stablecoins issued to the public and directly used for payment and settlement.
As for payment stablecoins, they refer to digital dollars issued by banks or non-bank institutions under the authorization of their balance sheets. It is defined as a digital asset used for payment or settlement, whose value is pegged to a fixed currency value (usually pegged 1:1 to the US dollar) and backed by short-term Treasury bills or cash.
Currently, the bill only applies to stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. As for algorithmic stablecoins, which rely solely on digital assets or algorithms to maintain their pegged value, the GENIUS Act takes a cautious but relaxed approach, requiring regulators to closely study and monitor such stablecoins rather than immediately banning them outright. Instead, the STABLE Act adopts a clear and direct two-year moratorium on the issuance of new algorithmic stablecoins, a move intended to await further regulatory analysis and protective measures.
2. Establish issuance thresholds and reserve requirements
The STABLE Act clarifies the issuance threshold: only institutions approved by the federal government or state are allowed to issue stablecoins, including bank subsidiaries, non-bank financial institutions and compliant non-bank entities, completely ending the era of "everyone can issue coins."
In detail, the STABLE Act does not adopt "license classification management" in the design of the regulatory path, but establishes a unified registration-based access mechanism, that is, all institutions that intend to issue payment stablecoins, whether they are banks or not, must register with the Federal Reserve and accept federal regulatory review.
The bill sets out two legal issuer paths: one is depository institutions (Insured Depository Institutions) regulated by the federal or state governments, which can directly apply to issue payment stablecoins; the other is non-depository trust institutions (Nondepository Trust Institutions), which can also register as stablecoin issuers as long as they meet the prudent requirements set by the Federal Reserve.
In terms of funds and reserve supervision, issuers must hold high-quality, readily liquid U.S. dollar assets (such as Treasury bonds, cash, central bank deposits, etc.) in a 1:1 ratio and be subject to continuous review by the Federal Reserve. Implement strong transparency requirements, including regular public disclosures and independent audits.
This institutional arrangement strengthens the "institutional endorsement" of the dollar anchor, ensuring that the "anchor" is real, auditable, and fully redeemable, avoiding credit crises caused by false reserves, misappropriation of funds, or lack of information disclosure.
3. Prohibition of interest payments, emphasizing the attributes of payment tools
The STABLE Act explicitly prohibits stablecoin issuers from providing interest or income to holders, ensuring that stablecoins are strictly used as cash-equivalent payment tools rather than investment products.
In addition, the bill clearly classifies stablecoins as non-securities or commodities, providing regulatory clarity, thereby simplifying jurisdiction and regulatory processes.
The bill emphasizes the "redemption right" of stablecoins to holders, that is, the public has the right to redeem the stablecoins in their hands for US dollar legal tender at a 1:1 ratio, and the issuer must fulfill this obligation at any time. In addition, it establishes clear consumer protection measures, such as asset isolation and priority claims in the event of the issuer's bankruptcy.
It can be said that the establishment of the above three points has raised the issuance of stablecoins to a very high level, not only putting forward higher requirements for the underlying credit mechanism, but also constraining the US dollar stablecoin in terms of system and regulations. It can even be said that this is a "substitute for the digital dollar."
The battle between the two bills will finally come to an end, which will promote the development of the digital asset industry
On April 1, according to foreign media reports, Bryan Steil, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Digital Assets Subcommittee, revealed that after Wednesday's deliberations, the STABLE Act will be "well aligned with the Senate's GENIUS Act". This was achieved after several rounds of "draft revisions" and technical assistance from the SEC and CFTC. There are 20% differences between the two bills, but these differences are only in text, not significant or substantive. At present, the biggest difference between the two is the requirements for international stablecoin issuers, state supervision of issuers, and some minor technical differences.
Bryan Steil said: "Ultimately, we hope to work with our colleagues in the Senate to push this bill through."
In addition to the STABLE Act, the other refers to the U.S. Senate's Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (GENIUS Act).
Despite some differences, the GENIUS Act and the STABLE Act reflect a broad bipartisan consensus on the basic principles of stablecoin regulation, including regulation of issuers, 1:1 full anchoring of the U.S. dollar, strong transparency requirements, consumer protection measures, and so on. However, as mentioned above, there are also some key points of disagreement. For example, the GENIUS Act allows stablecoins to pay interest or income to holders, while the STABLE Act strictly prohibits interest payments and explicitly excludes their function as investment or income assets. For another example, the GENIUS Act clearly stipulates that when the total amount of stablecoins issued by the issuer reaches US$10 billion, it must transition from state regulation to federal regulation, thus clearly defining when a stablecoin issuer is systemically important. The STABLE Act implicitly supports similar thresholds, but does not specify specific values, giving regulators more freedom to make continuous adjustments based on market developments.
At present, the two bills have been repeatedly discussed in the legislative process for a long time, and the battle between the two bills will definitely come to an end, and one of them will be passed this year. No matter who passes the legislation, it will herald the beginning of the regulation of the US cryptocurrency market, or it will also mark the beginning of a new era of global stablecoin regulation.
Stablecoin payments not only constitute the infrastructure of the Web3 digital asset industry, but also, as the central link in its policy, have a far-reaching impact on the development of the entire industry. From capital inflows, industry compliance, RWA on-chain to innovation, the compliance of stablecoins has far-reaching impacts and will promote the development of the digital asset industry.
What is more noteworthy is that the promotion of the stablecoin bill is not only a product of US market demand, it will also affect the global financial system and digital asset market. At present, the EU is promoting the MiCA Act, which is expected to reach an agreement with the US policy on stablecoin regulation and promote the formation of a global stablecoin payment compliance framework. In Asia, regulators in Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan have begun to gradually promote the legalization of stablecoins. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has formulated a relatively comprehensive policy framework in this area, and Hong Kong and Japan are also conducting corresponding legislation and policy trials.
The United States' accelerated promotion of stablecoin legislation may imply strategic intentions in the field of digital currency. With the continued exploration of stablecoins in other regions and the expansion of China's pilot projects on digital RMB, the United States must seize the initiative in stablecoin rules to stabilize its dollar hegemony. After the bill is passed, the US dollar stablecoin may evolve into a "global digital dollar". As a legal mapping of legal currency in the Web3 world, the compliance of stablecoins will promote cross-border payments and global capital flows, subvert traditional legal currency payment methods, and profoundly change the global financial landscape, further consolidating the dollar's dominant position in the global financial system.
As the mainland market has always been relatively conservative about the legalization of stablecoins, should it prepare for a rainy day and be prepared for danger in times of peace?
Kikyo
Weatherly
Catherine
Anais