logo
Analysis-Companies plan stablecoins under new law, but experts say hurdles remain

Analysis-Companies plan stablecoins under new law, but experts say hurdles remain

Yahooa day ago
By Hannah Lang
(Reuters) -Financial companies from Bank of America to Fiserv are preparing to launch their own dollar-backed crypto tokens now that a new U.S. law has established the first-ever rules for stablecoins, but experts warn the path forward could be anything but simple.
U.S. President Donald Trump on July 18 signed the GENIUS Act into law, setting federal rules and guidelines for cryptocurrency tokens pegged to the U.S. dollar known as stablecoins. This U.S. law, the first designed to facilitate crypto usage, could pave the way for the digital assets to become an everyday way to make payments and move money, experts said.
The use of stablecoins, designed to maintain a constant value, usually a 1:1 U.S. dollar peg, has exploded in recent years, notably among crypto traders moving funds to and from other tokens, such as bitcoin and ether.
Now, a slate of companies are entertaining their own stablecoin strategies to capitalize on the promise of instant payments and settlement that stablecoins offer. Payments on traditional banking rails can take several days to arrive, or take even longer across international borders.
Among the companies considering stablecoins are Walmart and Amazon, the Wall Street Journal reported in June. Walmart and Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
However, the new law will not immediately open the floodgates, experts said. The newfound opportunity to dabble in stablecoins can lead to numerous tricky considerations for firms, both strategic and technical.
Companies have to embark on a lengthy process to deploy their own stablecoins, or decide whether it makes more sense to integrate existing stablecoins, like issuer Circle's USDC, into their business.
Companies first have to decide the purpose of their stablecoins. For example, a retail platform could make a stablecoin available to customers to buy goods, which could appeal to crypto-savvy users. Some companies could use them internally for cross-border payments, given that stablecoins can enable near-instant payments, often with lower fees.
How a company plans to use a stablecoin could affect whether it creates a stablecoin or works with a partner.
"The intended use is going to matter a lot," said Stephen Aschettino, a partner at Steptoe. "Is this something really designed to drive customers to engage with the issuer, or is the issuer's primary motivation to have a stablecoin that is more ubiquitous?"
For nonbanks, stablecoins will bring new compliance costs and oversight requirements, given that the GENIUS Act requires issuers to comply with anti-money laundering and "know your customer" (KYC) requirements.
"Those that already have robust KYC risk management and regulatory change management programs or working towards implementing these program elements may have a competitive advantage," said Jill DeWitt, senior director of compliance and third-party risk management solutions at Moody's.
One group likely to enjoy that advantage is banks, which are no strangers to screening for sanctions-related risks and verifying the identities of their customers.
Bank of America and Citigroup are actively considering issuing their own stablecoins, the CEOs of both banks said in earnings calls last month. Others like Morgan Stanley are closely monitoring stablecoin developments. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said the bank will be involved in stablecoins, without giving details.
Banks need to weigh several factors before going live with stablecoins, including how holding the tokens might affect liquidity requirements, said Julia Demidova, head of digital currencies product and strategy at FIS.
Banks holding assets like stablecoins on their balance sheets might be required to hold more capital under current U.S. bank rules.
"The GENIUS Act is great, but if the bank is treating their stablecoin on the balance sheet under prudential banking regulation, you still need to look at the risk weight of the asset," she said.
Another crucial question is how to issue stablecoins. Like other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins are created on a blockchain, a digital ledger that records transactions.
Hundreds of blockchain networks exist today, two of the most popular being ethereum and solana. Both are considered public or "permissionless" blockchains because all transactions on those networks are available for anyone to see.
Still, it is unclear which attribute companies issuing stablecoins would prioritize. Banks, in particular, could opt for their own private, or "permissioned," blockchains instead, Demidova said.
"The banks would desire and demand that very clear governance and structure," she said. "In that permissionless environment, you don't have the governance and controls in place."
Others like said Nassim Eddequiouaq, CEO of Bastion, a provider of infrastructure for companies to issue their own stablecoins, see merits to permissionless blockchains.
"We've seen a tremendous amount of interest for existing blockchains that have seen user adoption, that have been battle tested at scale, including during activity spikes," he said.
Although the GENIUS Act has been signed into law, its effective date is potentially several years off, with federal banking regulators expected to issue rules in the meantime to fill in certain gaps.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, for instance, is expected to issue rules to outline several risk management and compliance requirements. Under the new U.S. framework, the Treasury Department will have to issue a rule on foreign stablecoin regulatory regimes and their compatibility with the new U.S. framework.
"These things are going to have to phase in," said Aschettino.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?
'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?

Yahoo

time5 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?

Picture this: It's 2007 and UFC lightweight Leonard Garcia has just received a $35,000 bonus for his Fight of the Night performance against Roger Huerta on the undercard of UFC 69. He lost the decision, but fought his heart out — as he always did — and the UFC rewarded him for it. Garcia felt pretty sure he was rich. I mean, $35,000? He had plenty of years when he didn't make nearly that much combined. That was some people's whole salary, and they worked hard for it. 'I just blew through that money real fast,' Garcia told me back in 2010. 'Coming from being in the smaller shows and then getting all that money all at once, it seemed like it was never going to run out. I just rode it into the dirt.' He learned from it, though. So three years later, when the UFC's parent company gave him a $65,000 bonus for another Fight of the Night, this time in what many also hailed as the Fight of the Year against Chan Sung Jung, he saved and invested it. He opened a three-year CD. He renovated his bathroom. You know, adult stuff. The last performance bonus Garcia received from the UFC was in 2011, when he lost another decision in another Fight of the Night, this time against Nam Phan at UFC 136. This time the bonuses were all $75,000. In other words, the bonuses had more than doubled in the span of four years. Garcia and other fighters could be forgiven, then, if they assumed this trend would continue. After all, the UFC and its parent company at the time only made more and more money each year. The events went from being broadcast on a niche men's-interest cable network like Spike TV to a major network TV partner in Fox. Then from there the UFC moved on to an even more lucrative deal with ESPN. And in 2026, as we learned this week, it will essentially double its broadcast rights revenue in a deal with Paramount. But in 2025, UFC bonuses are stuck at $50,000. With the exception of special events like UFC 300, they've held steady at that level for over a decade now. When adjusted for inflation, the $75,000 that Garcia and others received in 2011 is worth approximately $110,000 in today's money. While some events around the same time handed out bonuses worth far less, even the $35,000 Garcia received in 2007 would have been worth around $56,000 in 2025 money. All that is about to change, according to UFC CEO Dana White. Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, White promised some unspecified revisions to UFC fighter pay in the wake of this blockbuster deal with Paramount. But he did make one concrete financial promise: 'Bonuses are obviously going up, so that will be big.' White did not say how much bonuses would increase by. But clearly, these bonuses are a big deal to fighters. It's why they regularly plead for them in post-fight interviews. UFC featherweight Dan '50K' Ige even incorporated it as his nickname. Conor McGregor, the biggest star in either MMA or UFC history, delivered an iconic and oft-imitated moment early on in his career, following an impressive TKO win with the exhortation: 'Dana, 60 G's, baby!' (Again, that was 2013, when $60,000 had the the purchasing power of about $88,000 today.) So how much would UFC performance bonuses actually have to increase in order for it to be a true improvement on those handed out in the past? One starting point is to perform the simplest math available. The UFC's new broadcast rights deal is bringing in double the money of the previous one? Fine, double the bonuses. That would get us to $100,000 per bonus. But even that would fall short of keeping pace with inflation when compared with those 2011 bonuses. The biggest performance bonuses the UFC ever handed out were at UFC 300 last year, when each one was worth $300,000. (Max Holloway pocketed two of the four bonuses available, for a total of $600,000 for his knockout win over Justin Gaethje.) If that became the standard, it would mean $1.2 million in bonuses for every UFC event. Multiplied by 43 events per year, that comes out to $51.6 million per year in performance bonuses, which, to a lot of people, probably sounds like a lot. But it's also about 5% of the UFC's average yearly take in this new broadcast rights deal with Paramount. And that doesn't even factor in any of the other revenue sources, like ticket sales or site fees or international broadcast rights. Would the UFC actually consider a bonus increase of that magnitude? Based on everything we know it seems … doubtful. That's likely not just because TKO would rather keep the money than pay it out to people who have no real leverage or recourse to force such a reckoning. It's also probably because a fighter who suddenly has $300,000 in the bank is a lot less compliant when it comes to things like stepping in on short notice to plug holes in upcoming fight cards. Then again, hasn't the UFC told us again and again that it's a meritocracy where you 'eat what you kill'? The whole idea behind the performance bonuses is to motivate fighters to fight hard and put on a show for the fans. Imagine how much harder a prelim fighter making $20,000 to show would fight if you gave him a crack at a $300,000 bonus. And imagine what a bunch of fights like that might do for Paramount+ subscriptions.

Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions
Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions

Yahoo

time5 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions

Goldman Sachs says a key reason behind the unusually large revisions to recent U.S. economic data could be falling survey response rates. Analysts led by Jan Hatzius examined more than 30 indicators over the past decade and found measures like JOLTS job openings, retail sales, and nonfarm payroll growth have seen bigger revisions partly due to fewer responses. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with AMD. The debate intensified after the July jobs report delivered one of the largest two-month payroll revisions in decades outside the pandemic, prompting former President Donald Trump to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Erika McEntarfer. Trump accused her of rigging numbers before last year's election a claim she denied. Goldman noted other forces at play, including pandemic-related seasonal distortions that skewed initial prints for jobless claims and manufacturing surveys. Trump's replacement pick suggested halting the monthly jobs report, though the White House confirmed it would continue. Markets shrugged off the data drama, with Wall Street hitting record highs Tuesday on softer July inflation and Fed rate cut hopes. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store