Friends in the cryptocurrency world likely remember that in July 2025, Trump signed the GENIUS Act. Shortly thereafter, the US Treasury Department launched the ANPRM (Anti-Potentially Prohibited Coinbase Report), sparking heated discussion within the cryptocurrency community. I'm sure everyone is eager to learn about the latest developments, so this article from our team remains the same: we'll first review the history of US stablecoins and then break down the core issues of the GENIUS Act and the ANPRM. 01. The History of US Stablecoin Development — The GENIUS Act. As veterans know, US crypto regulation was a chaotic landscape in its early years: the SEC declared cryptocurrencies "securities," the CFTC "commodities," and states differed. New York's BitLicense was so strict it discouraged businesses, while Wyoming gave crypto companies the green light. In 2025, the situation began to change, with the GENIUS Act and the STABLE Act, both introduced by the Senate and the House, entering the "Gemini" era of US stablecoin regulation. Therefore, if you want to understand the current state of US stablecoins and the purpose of the GENIUS Act's public comment period, these two bills deserve a closer look. These two bills can be considered the twins of US stablecoin legislation, and their approaches share similarities. First, consider the GENIUS Act (full name: "National Innovation Act of 2025 to Guide and Establish a United States Stablecoin"), introduced by senators in February 2025. Its core goal is to tailor a development path for "payment stablecoins." Its key elements can be summarized in this table: Next, consider the STABLE Act (full name: "Better Ledger Economy for Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability Act of 2025"). While its core logic aligns with the GENIUS Act, there are some differences in the details. First, their positioning differs. While both define stablecoins as payment-oriented, they emphasize that "the issuer must promise to redeem, redeem, or repurchase them in a fixed currency," further highlighting their principal preservation nature. Second, their core rules are the same: 1:1 holding of high-quality liquid assets, regular audit disclosures, and licensed issuance, but they also have requirements for international issuers and limits on state-level regulatory authority. Overall, the two bills do not conflict substantively, acting more like complementary partners: the GENIUS Act establishes a framework, clarifying the regulatory oversight and development direction of stablecoins; the STABLE Act adds details on transparency and accountability, prioritizing the security of user funds. 02 Six Major ANPRM Topics and Public Comment Focus After understanding the history of stablecoins in the United States, consider shifting your perspective and commenting on the recently released ANPRM by the U.S. Treasury Department, formally implementing the GENIUS Act. This public comment period covers nearly every aspect of the stablecoin ecosystem, focusing on six key issues: first, issuer qualification (including the determination of "equivalent supervision" for overseas issuers); second, reserve asset holding and disclosure rules; third, extraterritorial application (compliance requirements for overseas institutions providing services in the United States); fourth, anti-money laundering and marketing restrictions; fifth, federal income tax classification; and sixth, the interest payment prohibition (including indirect payment disputes). Comments are still being collected, and while conclusions are still far from being reached, there are several key topics that I'd like to discuss. First, who is eligible to issue stablecoins? This is a key question determining whether USDT can remain in the US market. The GENIUS Act stipulates that only officially licensed "payment stablecoin issuers" can issue coins in the US. Therefore, a core issue in the US Treasury's inquiry is "who can issue payment stablecoins in the US." Under the GENIUS Act, only licensed payment stablecoin issuers (PPSIs) can issue such stablecoins in the US. The ANPRM also seeks public feedback on whether additional definitions are needed and whether a "green channel" should be established for small-value transactions. For Tether, the company that issues USDT, if it fails to meet these new requirements, it may have only three options: either comply with the new regulations, exit the US market, or launch a new coin that meets the requirements. Tether's announcement of the USAT, designed specifically for the US, is essentially an attempt to meet regulatory requirements by "splitting its business." The regulatory standards for foreign issuers have even more far-reaching implications. By questioning whether other countries' regulatory systems meet standards and their compliance capabilities, the US is effectively vying for control over global stablecoin rules. Foreign stablecoins that fail to meet US standards may find it difficult to enter the US market. Secondly, the question of whether stablecoins can provide users with returns has also been a hotly debated topic. While the bill prohibits issuers from directly paying users interest, it does not prevent exchanges and other platforms from offering disguised incentives. For example, when the Coinbase platform offered users a 4% bonus on stablecoin holdings, banks protested, accusing it of covertly attracting deposits and lobbying the government to change the rules. Regulators questioned whether indirectly offering interest constituted a violation. The underlying issue is a fierce competition between traditional finance and the crypto industry. A Final Word: Ultimately, the GENIUS Act and the ANPRM are essentially an attempt by the US to co-opt stablecoins into the US dollar hegemony. While the bills, by tying them to US debt and establishing a framework, can maintain the dominance of US dollar-denominated stablecoins, the prospect of achieving "hegemony" is overly optimistic. The crypto market is inherently decentralized, global regulatory competition is ongoing, and coupled with the rise of Hong Kong and the advancement of offshore RMB stablecoins, I believe the US simply cannot dominate. Finally, I'd like to offer some practical advice to my fellow investors. First, closely monitor the ANPRM feedback, especially regarding reserve custody and interest payment rules, as these directly impact the cost and liquidity of USDT and USDC. Second, focus on the Hong Kong market. Offshore RMB stablecoins have a valuation trough, so investing early may offer opportunities. Regulation and innovation are in a constant battle. Understanding the rules and choosing the right track are the key to navigating the stablecoin market.
XingChi
Zoey
Beincrypto
Cointelegraph