
GENIUS Act Clears the Way for Stablecoin-Powered Embedded Finance: By Nkahiseng Ralepeli
For years, stablecoins existed in a regulatory grey zone – popular as 'digital cash' but lacking official oversight. The GENIUS Act changes that virtually overnight. By passing this law, U.S. policymakers have sketched out the first federal framework for payment stablecoins. Under the Act, only approved and well-supervised issuers (think insured banks and properly licensed fintech firms) can circulate these coins, and they must back every token 1:1 with high-quality reserves like actual dollars or short-term Treasuries. This means the 'stable' in stablecoin is now legally enforceable. Issuers will need to publish regular reserve reports and undergo audits, putting to rest the ghost of past scandals where holders fretted over whether their stablecoins were truly backed.
The GENIUS Act effectively invites traditional financial institutions to aggressively relook their stance on stablecoins. It classifies payment stablecoin issuers as regulated financial institutions, pulling them firmly under anti-money laundering and consumer protection rules. Importantly, it also spells out what stablecoins are not: under this framework they're explicitly not securities or commodities. This was a crucial clarification, in one stroke, stablecoins were liberated from the limbo of potential SEC crackdowns, solidifying their status as a legitimate form of digital cash rather than a speculative investment. However – in a nod to preserving trust – the Act also forbids issuers from marketing these tokens in any way that implies government backing. There's no 'Federal Deposit Insurance' safety net here, and no pretending a private stablecoin has Uncle Sam's guarantee. These dollars may be digital, but they're private-sector dollars, not Fed-issued coins.
By transforming stablecoins from a wild experiment into a tightly supervised financial product, the law paves the way for broader adoption. Banks, fintechs, and even big retail brands now have a clear rulebook if they want to integrate stablecoins into their services. For the US government, the play here is pretty simple: reaffirm the U.S. dollar's dominance in the digital era – ensuring that as money goes blockchain-shaped, it's American-regulated stablecoins that people are using, not unregulated offshore tokens or rival nations' digital currencies.
Institutions Jump In: The New Era of Bank-Issued Digital Money
Off of the back of the passing of the GENIUS ACT, JP Morgan announced JPMD. So, what exactly is JPMD? The bank is careful with labels – officially it's a deposit token – but functionally it's a blockchain-based dollar token tied to deposits at JP Morgan. In other words, it's JP Morgan's own stablecoin, just with a regulatory-friendly twist.
With JPMD, each token corresponds to one U.S. dollar on deposit with the bank, and here's the kicker: unlike JPM's earlier internal-only JPM Coin (which ran on a private network), JPMD is being launched on Coinbase's public blockchain network, Base (built on Ethereum). That means JP Morgan's digital dollars can potentially interoperate with the broader crypto ecosystem – from decentralised finance platforms to other banks' token networks – without needing a special private ledger or bespoke infrastructure. It's a big step for an institution whose CEO once expressed scepticism about Bitcoin. But the regulatory clarity provided by the GENIUS Act has clearly emboldened traditional banks to act a bit more like nimble fintechs.
JPMD is currently aimed at corporate and institutional clients – those who want to move funds across the globe or settle large transactions at any hour without waiting for legacy payment rails to catch up. Round-the-clock settlement is one of JPMD's selling points: businesses could pay each other on a Saturday at midnight as easily as a Tuesday at 10 a.m., with finality in minutes. And unlike most crypto stablecoins, JPMD is expected to pay interest to its holders, essentially functioning like a regular bank deposit that just happens to be transferable on blockchain rails. (The GENIUS Act did debate whether stablecoins should be allowed to bear interest – to avoid creating unauthorised 'digital banks' – but JP Morgan's positioning of JPMD as a form of bank deposit likely puts it on solid ground.)
The timing isn't coincidental either. U.S. banks have been cautiously circling the stablecoin space for years, but the fear of regulatory backlash kept them mostly on the sidelines. The moment Washington signalled that stablecoins are officially welcome (within well-defined guardrails), JP Morgan and its peers effectively got a green light to innovate. In fact, a consortium of major banks (JP Morgan included) was reportedly mulling a joint stablecoin venture even before the Act passed.
Make no mistake: a top U.S. bank issuing a token on a public blockchain is a watershed moment. It also neatly aligns with a larger trend: the blending of banking and technology to offer seamless financial services wherever they're needed.
Stablecoins Meet Embedded Finance: Money That Works Behind the Scenes
The term embedded finance is not a new one, it has been circulating the financial services and payments industries for an incredibly long time, but execution has been a little more than just tricky. The idea is simple: Any company, whether a retailer or a ride-sharing app, can integrate financial services into its user experience. Now that U.S. regulators have effectively blessed certain stablecoins, businesses large and small can incorporate them without concerns around consumer protection and legal implications more broadly. Imagine an e-commerce marketplace enabling payments via a USD stablecoin under the hood: customers pay in dollars as usual, but on the backend, tokens are settled in seconds in the respective wallets.
The GENIUS Act's impact on embedded finance is that it makes all these use cases far more feasible at scale. Conservative players who were once wary of crypto can now trust that regulated stablecoins are available – with legal protections and oversight – to embed into their platforms. And stablecoins bring tangible perks for embedding:
A merchant accepting a blockchain-based dollar might avoid some of the hefty fees or foreign exchange mark-ups.
There are no business hours on the blockchain. Stablecoins can settle payments in near real-time, at any time of day or night. That means a fintech app can pay out a freelancer on a Sunday night, or a company can send funds to a supplier in a different time zone instantly – no waiting for the 'next business day'. Cash flows become quicker and more predictable, which is a boon for businesses and individuals alike.
Perhaps most revolutionary, stablecoins live on platforms where code can control money. This enables smart contracts – essentially self-executing agreements. A company could program a stablecoin payment to automatically split among multiple parties, or to release funds only when a certain condition is met (say, a shipment delivery is confirmed). Imagine rent payments that auto-distribute to landlords and property managers, or insurance payouts that trigger instantly when an IoT sensor detects a flight cancellation. Money becomes software, opening up a world of financial innovation that can be embedded directly into apps and services.
Think of a shopping platform that also offers loans at checkout, or a social media app where you can instantly tip creators. Stablecoins are poised to become the secret sauce and plumbing in many of these scenarios. And now that they are getting the U.S. government's regulatory seal of approval, that plumbing can be extended anywhere from retail checkouts to mobile apps without the fear of a sudden legal clampdown. We may soon see loyalty programmes denominated in stablecoins, or subscription services charging your stablecoin wallet directly, all in a way that feels as smooth as using Apple Pay or a debit card today.
International Ripples: Global Banking and Geopolitics in a Stablecoin Era
The U.S. move to regulate stablecoins is sending ripples through international banking halls and central bank offices alike. For one, American banks getting into stablecoins puts pressure on banks elsewhere to not fall behind. If JP Morgan can offer its clients instant dollar transfers via JPMD, a client of Barclays or Deutsche Bank will soon expect similar magic. To that end, foreign institutions have the U.S. playbook as a reference point, and perhaps a bit of competitive FOMO to deal with.
Importantly, by embracing private USD stablecoins, the U.S. is indirectly strengthening the digital reach of the dollar globally. If a Kenyan fintech startup or a Brazilian exporter can use a U.S.-regulated stablecoin to do business, that's one more instance of the dollar being the medium of exchange instead of, say, a Chinese digital yuan or a euro-based token. It's a kind of 'digital dollar diplomacy': foster the adoption of dollars by making them the easiest digital currency to plug into any application. This could reinforce dollar dominance in global trade – a 21st-century upgrade to the old Pax Americana, where now all roads (or rather, blockchains) lead to the greenback.
For emerging markets and smaller economies, U.S. stablecoins are a double-edged sword. On one hand, a reliable dollar stablecoin can provide a lifeline in places with volatile currencies or weak banking infrastructure. Businesses and individuals can hold value in dollars without a U.S. bank account, and send money globally with just a mobile phone. This could supercharge remittances, e-commerce, and access to finance in regions where the local currency is unstable – essentially a form of digital dollarisation. On the other hand, if everyone in a small economy starts using digital dollars instead of the local money, the central bank loses some control over monetary policy and financial stability. Governments might face tough choices: embrace U.S. stablecoins to ride the wave of innovation and efficiency, or push back and develop their own digital currencies to keep a grip on their financial system.
Programmable Money and New Settlement Rails: The Technical Backbone
At the heart of all these changes is a technological shift. Stablecoins run on blockchain networks – new settlement rails that operate very differently from the traditional banking plumbing. Instead of relying on batch processing through central clearing houses (which shut down on weekends and holidays), we get continuous, nearly instant clearing of funds on distributed ledgers. This is a profound upgrade to the nuts-and-bolts of finance. Picture the difference as akin to switching from postal mail to email, but for moving money. By anchoring stablecoins to these blockchain rails, institutions are effectively building an internet of value atop the internet of information.
One big technical underpinning is interoperability. A dollar stablecoin isn't confined to one bank's proprietary system; it can, in theory, move freely to any compatible wallet or platform globally. JP Morgan launching JPMD on Ethereum's ecosystem (via Base) is significant because it means even a behemoth bank recognises the benefit of open networks. In time, we could see stablecoins from different banks or countries transacting with each other through shared protocols, much as an email sent from Gmail reaches a Yahoo inbox seamlessly. For embedded finance, that means a fintech app in one country could integrate a stablecoin issued in another country as easily as integrating an API – creating a web of interconnected financial services across borders.
The technical promise of these new rails will need to be met with robust risk management. The GENIUS Act's drafters were well aware of this: notably, the law requires that issuers have the ability to freeze or 'burn' (invalidate) tokens if necessary – a tool to stop hackers or sanctioned actors from exploiting the system. This blend of programmability with oversight means that law enforcement, with due process, could halt stolen funds even on a blockchain, or regulators could intervene if an issuer misbehaves, all without shutting down the entire network. Traditional crypto purists might balk at the idea of freeze functions, but it's part of making regulators comfortable with this brave new world of digital finance.
Conclusion: A New Financial Era, Embedded and Empowered
The passing of the GENIUS Act and the rapid response by institutions like JP Morgan are harbingers of a financial world that is at once more decentralised and more interconnected. It's almost poetic: by seeking clarity and control, regulators have inadvertently catalysed a wave of innovation that may ultimately reshape the very infrastructure of banking.
In this unfolding era, stablecoins stand at the intersection of tech and finance. They're becoming the digital glue binding together banks, fintech platforms, and everyday services. In the next few years, using a stablecoin could feel no more exotic than using a debit card or a mobile wallet. The macro-level implications are still playing out, but it's clear that money is entering a period of rapid evolution in both form and function.
The GENIUS Act may have a whimsical name, but if it succeeds, it will prove to be a masterstroke in shaping the future of money. In a world soon to be filled with JPMD and its kin, transacting could become as easy as sending a text. Finance would be more embedded in our lives than ever, while also more open and competitive across borders.
Call it the start of the stablecoin era or the embedded finance era. By any name, a new chapter in the story of money has begun – this time with the law on its side and innovation at its heart.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Israel-Iran news live: Donald Trump says strikes on Iran were ‘devastating attack' amid row over claims of success
Update: Date: 2025-06-26T06:34:10.000Z Title: Trump claims US strikes on Iran were 'devastating' with 'new intelligence' supporting success Content: Donald Trump's administration ratcheted up its defence of the US's weekend attacks on Iran, citing 'new intelligence' to support its initial claim of complete success and criticising a leaked intelligence assessment that suggested Tehran's nuclear programme had been set back by only a few months. The growing row came amid reports that the White House will to try to limit the sharing of classified documents with Congress, according to the Washington Post and the Associated Press. 'This was a devastating attack, and it knocked them for a loop,' Trump said on Wednesday, apparently backing away from comments he'd made earlier in the day, that the intelligence was 'inconclusive'. Senior Trump officials publicly rejected the leaked initial assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) which concluded key components of the nuclear programme were capable of being restarted within months. Director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in a post on X that 'new intelligence confirms' what Trump has stated. She said: Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do. CIA director John Ratcliffe in a statement said that new intelligence from a 'historically reliable' source indicated that 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.' Update: Date: 2025-06-26T06:27:15.000Z Title: Welcome and summary Content: Hello and welcome to the Guardian's continuing coverage of the crisis in the Middle East. Donald Trump's administration has cited 'new intelligence' to support its initial claim of complete success of the US's weekend attacks on Iran, while criticising a leaked intelligence assessment that suggested Tehran's nuclear programme had been set back by only a few months. The growing row came amid reports that the White House will to try to limit the sharing of classified documents with Congress. 'This was a devastating attack, and it knocked them for a loop,' Trump said on Wednesday, apparently backing away from comments he'd made earlier in the day, that the intelligence was 'inconclusive'. The claim comes after the US president hit back at a leaked intelligence report that said US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities had likely only set back the country's nuclear programme by a few months. Trump had earlier criticised CNN and the New York Times for their reports on the leaked intelligence assessment, claiming they had teamed up to 'demean one of the most successful military strikes in history', and declared Iran's nuclear sites were 'completely destroyed'. The White House earlier called the intelligence assessment 'flat-out wrong'. In other key developments: US senators are also set to meet with top national security officials on Thursday as many question President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites — and whether those strikes were ultimately successful. The classified briefing, which was originally scheduled for Tuesday and was delayed, also comes as the Senate is expected to vote this week on a resolution that would require congressional approval if Trump decides to strike Iran again. Donald Trump has weighed in on ally Benjamin Netanyahu's long-running corruption trial, saying in a social media post that the trial was a 'witch hunt' and should be cancelled. 'Bibi and I just went through HELL together, fighting a very tough and brilliant longtime enemy of Israel, Iran, and Bibi could not have been better, sharper, or stronger in his LOVE for the incredible Holy Land,' Trump said on Wednesday night, using a nickname for the Israeli leader. US secretary of state Marco Rubio told Politico on Wednesday that Iran is 'much further away from a nuclear weapon' after a US strike on Iran's three main nuclear sites over the weekend. There is a chance that much of Iran's highly enriched uranium survived Israeli and US attacks because it may have been moved by Tehran soon after the first strikes, UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday. Trump said the US will hold talks with Iran next week, with a possible agreement on the table about Tehran's nuclear programme. The US president said that Israel and Iran are 'tired' but the conflict between the two countries could start again. Speaking alongside the Nato secretary general, Mark Rutte, Trump compared the US strikes on Iran to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saying: 'This was essentially the same thing: that ended that war; this ended the war.' Mark Rutte defended Donald Trump's swearing outburst on Tuesday when commenting on the Israel-Iran war. 'Daddy sometimes has to use strong language,' Rutte told reporters. France is conducting its own analysis on damage to Iran's nuclear facilities after US and Israeli strikes, French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters on Wednesday. Iranian authorities are pivoting from a ceasefire with Israel to intensify an internal security crackdown across the country with mass arrests, executions and military deployments, particularly in the restive Kurdish region, according to officials and activists. Iran's parliament approved a bill on Wednesday to suspend cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, state-affiliated news outlet Nournews reported. Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf was quoted by state media as saying Iran would accelerate its civilian nuclear programme.


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Trump-Iran live: President teases 'irrefutable' news conference about bombing - and says US will 'save' Netanyahu
Donald Trump says defence secretary Pete Hegseth will hold a "major news conference" today about the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. He also says the US will "save" Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu from a "witch hunt". Listen to Trump 100 below as you scroll.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The biggest Club World Cup question is still unanswered – does anyone care?
There is the £1bn broadcasting deal, the £97m prize for the winners, the guarantee of a minimum of over £30m in revenue for the Premier League participants. There is the possibility of the kind of windfall that could bring domestic dominance for a club from outside Europe. There is the potential reward of cracking America, as everyone looks to build their brand. In a sense, though, the Club World Cup depends upon a different kind of investment. Whatever the big financial figures, it needs buy-in: not from Fifa 's partners but from the part of the footballing family who are rarely consulted, the fans. The Club World Cup is in a battle for hearts and minds and eyeballs. It is a matter if – and it is too early to draw definitive conclusions – people buy into it; if they invest their time, their hopes and their emotions. It is perhaps easiest to assess the match-going public. The empty seats suggest Fifa misjudged the equation of supply and demand, selecting some venues that were too big and making tickets too expensive. It is partly about the American fans, partly an issue of how many clubs have brought a sizeable travelling support, and the evidence is mixed. But there is a broader test, conducted not in Atlanta or Seattle but in armchairs and sofas. How many are tuning in and how often? Because there are audiences Fifa will be chasing, hoping the interest they display in established competitions is transferred to a new – or expanded, or reinvented – one. There is the summer tournament audience, those who, if they can, would try to watch every game of a World Cup or European Championship; will they assume the same approach with a Club World Cup? There are those who, in the group stages and last 16, would not go that far, but would tune in for the main game of the day. Are they carving out a couple of hours every night for the Club World Cup? Then there is the Champions League precedent. With multiple matches on at the same time, no one sees everything. But there are plenty who will watch something on every match night, and then, when the fixtures are fewer, will not miss anything at the business end of the tournament. The Club World Cup contains some of the same sides, the possibility of the same match-ups. Would those who, with no allegiance to any of the sides, automatically watch a Champions League semi-final between, say, Juventus and Bayern Munich or Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain, adopt the same attitude? Or, to use a parallel from 2022, will the neutrals who came to cheer on Morocco in their surprise surge to the semi-finals of the World Cup do likewise if Botafogo or Palmeiras, Flamengo or Fluminense charge into the last four now? Or will they simply sit this one out? It is a question of if the Club World Cup becomes appointment viewing; if millions, across the footballing world and separately, resolve to make a date in their diaries. And if the answers will be different, with the early indications that South America has bought into the Club World Cup more than Europe, there are a host of factors. They include time and weather: for the European audience, the late kick-offs are off-putting; for everyone, the risk of 100-degree heat can diminish the spectacle of the earlier ones. They can relate specifically to the United States, but there are wider issues. There is the crisis of legitimacy with the Infantino algorithm for qualification, whereby Lionel Messi's Inter Miami were crowbarred into the tournament, and, seemingly, there were attempts to find Cristiano Ronaldo a club for a month. Separately, there is the Ceferin criteria that means that, somehow, Red Bull Salzburg are in a tournament that does not feature the reigning champions of England, Italy or Spain, or two of the Champions League semi-finalists. There is the ennui and exhaustion felt by players and public alike; many footballers' comments last year were hints they knew their workload was unsustainable, but presumably they have been silenced by executives who want the profits from the competition. Yet the sense of overkill has been apparent among many a football fan. While there were legitimate reasons to want a Club World Cup, this competition has been imposed on everyone without consultation or consideration, and that can alienate some potential viewers. Fifa's hype and hyperbole, pronouncing everything they do a glorious success, is propaganda rather than analysis – perhaps some are voting with their remote controls by turning off. There is the football itself. Some games have been like pre-season friendlies, with heavily rotated teams that bear no resemblance to the clubs' strongest sides, with managers taking the understandable view that their season has almost 12 months left to run. Which, in itself, is an admission that it ends with the Champions League final and the World Cup. A danger for this Club World Cup is that European fans can zone out of summer games in the United States, unless they are in an actual World Cup, anyway. There are annual matches, some in tournaments with grandiose names – the International Champions Cup or the World Football Challenge – that carry absolutely no prestige. If the Club World Cup can redress a global imbalance – the dominance of the five major European leagues – it probably can't do so without sufficient engagement from this side of the Atlantic, and not merely because some of the most lucrative television markets are here. It is too easy, too simplistic, to dismiss all the scepticism as Anglocentric, a 21st-century version of the Little Englander syndrome that led this country to skip the first three World Cups, when the Champions League can feel the ultimate in the club game on the mainland as well. It is scarcely conclusive proof, but in five days in a continental European city last week, there seemed no evidence of bars or restaurants showing the Club World Cup, or that it was even on. It is hard to imagine a similar indifference to football in the summer of 2024 or 2026. There is ample proof that European football fans are prepared to commit to a summer tournament every two years, whether the World Cup or the European Championship, but not lesser tournaments. There are plenty of competing attractions in the summer sporting schedule – football does not always succeed when it attempts to park its tanks on their lawn. And, in this case, Fifa is also trying to overshadow the rest of the same sport, whether it's the women's European Championship, the men's Under-21 tournament or the Gold Cup. The game's governing body does not always capture the imagination with its competitions. Undoubtedly, some people cared about the Confederations Cup. Just not enough for Fifa and not enough to dominate the popular consciousness. Does the Club World Cup? It may be too soon to tell. Organic growth – as opposed to imposing a tournament and expecting it to be an instant hit – can take time. Anything new has not yet become a habit for many. But each of us among the intended audience faces a decision: how much value we attach to the Club World Cup. It has had shock scorelines, the unexpectedly early eliminations of Atletico Madrid and Porto, and the spirited progress of the Brazilian clubs. But plotlines are more enthralling, characters more compelling and the narrative only addictive if you are sufficiently invested in it. Some, undeniably, are. Others are not. For them, the Club World Cup has been the breaking point, something they are deliberately switching off. Some will be picking and choosing their games, or vaguely paying attention. Different people will provide different answers. But for the Club World Cup to genuinely prosper, it needs a critical mass who want it, want to watch it, and want to watch almost all of it.