Congress Is Working on a New Crypto Bill. Here's What Investors Need to Know.
Stablecoins have exploded in popularity, and are now a $250 billion industry.
Washington lawmakers are in the process of delivering a final piece of stablecoin legislation before the end of the summer.
New legislation should make it more attractive for cryptocurrency investors to get exposure to stablecoins.
10 stocks we like better than Circle Internet Group ›
In June 2020, the value of the crypto stablecoin industry was $10 billion. Five years later, it's now a $250 billion industry. That makes stablecoins one of the fastest-growing areas of the crypto market right now.
In fact, stablecoins have grown so fast and have become so popular that they have attracted the attention of Congress, which is looking for ways to regulate them. There are now two competing pieces of legislation, one in the House and one in the Senate, and the goal is to have a final bill passed before the end of the summer.
For crypto investors, this new legislation could have important consequences. In theory, it should make stablecoins much more approachable for the average investor. And it will help to define how stablecoins fit into the world of traditional finance. If Congress is interested in this new stablecoin trend, then you need to be aware of it as well.
Before digging into the new stablecoin legislation, it's important to understand what stablecoins are, and how they work. Most stablecoins are pegged 1:1 to the value of the U.S. dollar. As a result, many refer to them as "digital dollars." In theory, you can always exchange $1 worth of stablecoins for $1 in cash. That's what makes them so valuable: They are the easiest way to move between the worlds of traditional finance and blockchain finance.
Right now, two stablecoins -- Tether (CRYPTO: USDT) and USDC (CRYPTO: USDC) -- account for approximately 85% of the value of the stablecoin market. But there are plenty of new, up-and-coming stablecoins, including one that has been issued by World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture affiliated with the Trump family.
To give you an idea of just how big stablecoins have become, of the top 50 cryptocurrencies (as ranked by market cap), five of them are now stablecoins. The easiest way to spot them is by looking for cryptos trading at a price of exactly $1.
In order for stablecoin legislation to be signed into law by President Trump later this summer, congressional lawmakers need to settle their differences about what should be included in the final bill.
At the beginning of this year, this seemed like an easy thing to do. But if you've been following all the ruckus around the "Big, Beautiful Bill," it is now obvious that getting the House and Senate to agree on anything these days is challenging. When you add in the fact that a Trump-affiliated crypto venture (World Liberty Financial) is now an emerging player in the stablecoin industry, things get even more complicated.
According to Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, there are three major points of contention around stablecoins that need to be ironed out between the two chambers.
The first involves the oversight of foreign issuers of stablecoins. Legislators want firm assurances that foreign stablecoin issuers will be held to the same strict standards as U.S. stablecoin issuers. This is important because Tether, the world's largest stablecoin issuer, is not based in the United States.
The second involves who has the authority to regulate these stablecoins at both the state and federal levels. Just a year ago, the obvious choice at the federal level would have been the SEC. But it now looks like another regulatory body might get the nod.
The third involves who has the right to issue stablecoins. Historically, there has been a firm dividing line between banking and commerce in the United States. Banks and other financial services firms should be able to issue stablecoins, right? But can Silicon Valley tech companies issue stablecoins? And can entities affiliated with political figures issue stablecoins?
If you are interested in investing in stablecoins, there are several potential strategies to pursue. The most straightforward approach is to invest in stablecoin issuers themselves. The obvious choice here is Circle Internet Group (NYSE: CRCL), which went public on June 5. Circle is the company behind USDC, the second-largest stablecoin in the world.
Or, you might decide to focus on publicly traded companies that are moving aggressively into stablecoins. For example, in August 2023, PayPal (NASDAQ: PYPL) launched a new stablecoin called PayPal USD (CRYPTO: PYUSD), which is currently valued at $1 billion.
You could also decide to focus on cryptocurrencies with "companion" stablecoins. For example, Ripple, the company behind the XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) token, issued a companion stablecoin called Ripple USD (CRYPTO: RLUSD) in December 2024. The goal was to spur activity on the XRP blockchain, thereby boosting demand for the XRP token.
And, of course, you could invest in stablecoins themselves. This might sound a bit odd at first. Why would you take $1 and invest it in an asset that will always trade for $1? However, new stablecoin yield strategies are exploding in popularity. As a result, you might be able to earn more on that "digital dollar" than on dollars sitting in your bank account.
While stablecoins might sound confusing, they are now one of the fastest-growing areas of the crypto world, and can no longer be ignored. With new stablecoin legislation scheduled to be signed later this summer, it should create even more momentum for the top players in this emerging space.
Before you buy stock in Circle Internet Group, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Circle Internet Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $655,255!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $888,780!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 999% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 174% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join .
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
Dominic Basulto has positions in Circle Internet Group, USDC, and XRP. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends PayPal and XRP. The Motley Fool recommends the following options: long January 2027 $42.50 calls on PayPal and short June 2025 $77.50 calls on PayPal. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
Congress Is Working on a New Crypto Bill. Here's What Investors Need to Know. was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I'm an Economist: 4 Bits of Investing Advice Amid Turbulent Trump Market
Since President Trump took office for the second time, the market has been on a wild ride largely due to implementation of mass tariffs, causing many Americans nearing retirement and those who have already stopped working to panic for their 401(k)s. For You: Check Out: 'I looked at my 401(k) this morning and in the last two days that's lost $58,000. That's stressful,' recent retiree Victor Fettes, 54, told NBC News. 'If that continues, I can't stay retired.' With the market in continuous flux, Trump's tariffs threaten to increase prices and inflation. And Americans are feeling financially strapped. Many are worried about their golden years and whether they should invest. While there's no one size fits all answer, there are several things to consider, according to experts. It's scary to shell out money for investments when the market is uncertain. One benefit to investing during such economic instability is you can often buy stocks at a lower price and sell them at a higher cost later. However, individual situations vary. Tracy Shuchart, Senior Economist at NinjaTrader, advised to take note of Russell Investments' comprehensive analysis of 31 U.S. recessions from 1869 to 2018. 'Historical evidence strongly supports continued investment during periods of economic uncertainty, despite the counterintuitive nature of this approach,' she stated, referring to the data revealing 16 out of the 31 recessions produced positive stock market returns. She explained, 'Market timing presents significant challenges that argue against attempting to avoid volatile periods entirely and that Russell Investments' research demonstrates beating a buy-and-hold strategy over 150 years would require correctly predicting 77% of market turning points — a level of accuracy that proves elusive even for professional investors.' Looking to the past to see how the country endured previous economically challenging times can help forecast how future recessions will fare, and determine a financial path that will build long-term stability even during shaky times. Discover More: A volatile market can create a lack of confidence when it comes to investing, but there are calculated systems that can work during turbulent times such as the dollar-cost averaging strategy. It involves investing a fixed amount in regular intervals, whatever the amount is. According to Shuchart, this method 'provides both mathematical and behavioral advantages during volatile markets.' She explained further that 'this mechanism reduces the average cost per share over time, while eliminating the need for timing decisions.' Amy Pridemore, a financial wellness instructor at Virginia Commonwealth University, agreed that dollar-cost averaging is the way to go. 'This action allows individuals to create healthy savings behaviors regardless of current market trends,' she explained Pridemore went on to say that 'money will be invested when the market is down, money will be invested when the market is up — this 'set it and forget it' approach provides wins for investors all around.' Another approach Shuchart recommended was quality focus — investing in companies with solid fundamentals, consistent profitability and a strong history of growth. 'Companies with strong balance sheets, consistent earnings, competitive advantages and experienced management teams typically demonstrate greater resilience during economic stress, and often emerge stronger when conditions improve,' she explained. Quality focus can reduce the risk, while creating the opportunity for a potential big payout, according to The Economic Times. Making a big financial decision under distress can lead to a shattering outcome, and cause you to leave money on the table. According to Shuchart, BlackRock's analysis of S&P 500 performance from 2005 to 2024 demonstrated the severe consequences of missing market recovery periods: Remaining fully invested: $717,046 (from $100,000 initial investment) Missing the 5 best days: $452,884 (37% reduction) Missing the 25 best days: $158,792 (78% reduction) A rushed choice about financial matters doesn't always end well. When making investment decisions, it's vital to think long term. 'The economy has shown fluctuations and recovery,' Peter Reagan, financial market strategist at Birch Gold Group, stated. 'It will continue to do so.' He explained, 'Having investments that have shown their strength of preserving wealth across these fluctuations is something to remember before even considering selling any investments.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on I'm an Economist: 4 Bits of Investing Advice Amid Turbulent Trump Market
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Brutal Truths About Social Security Boomers Must Understand
Retirement planning is serious business — proper and responsible planning can be the difference between ensuring that your golden years are safe and comfortable, or fraught and financially disastrous. A crucial component to that retirement planning? Understanding Social Security. Be Aware: Consider This: That said, the generation currently entering into retirement age — baby boomers — may not have the grasp on the hard realities of Social Security that are needed for a responsible, well-planned retirement. In fact, there are a handful of mistakes and misnomers about Social Security that are easy for boomers to make, if they're not careful. These truths, while potentially frightening, even brutal, have to be understood for a stable retirement. Quite simply, Social Security, while a safety net, cannot be considered a sole source of retirement income. It just isn't enough; Social Security funds were designed to bolster retirement income, not be the only source of it. Boomers must plan for a primary retirement income other than Social Security. Read More: Why should boomers not rely on Social Security only? Per The Motley Fool (via Nasdaq), at best Social Security funds will only cover approximately 40% of a retiring boomer's pre-retirement income. That's 60% of pre-retirement income that has to be found elsewhere, unless you're prepared to lose more than half of one's income, and live on the little that's left. As 24/7 WallStreet has reported, unless Congress takes significant action, it's very possible that the Social Security Administration will run out of funding by 2035 — a time when a vast majority of boomers will be retired and living upon at least some level of Social Security. Not only is Social Security not enough to serve as a sole retirement income, it may not even be solvent within a decade. A hard, brutal truth that all boomers must face is that, despite what they've put into Social Security, it cannot be relied upon to save, or even protect, their retirement. The remedy for this? Savings, investments, responsible spending and a varied portfolio – and a healthy honestly about the sometimes brutal reality surrounding America's Social Security system. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) Are You Rich or Middle Class? 8 Ways To Tell That Go Beyond Your Paycheck This article originally appeared on 3 Brutal Truths About Social Security Boomers Must Understand 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
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'
