
'Genius' move: What are the goals of the three US crypto bills?
The bipartisan bill is one of three that had both Capitol Hill and crypto enthusiasts buzzing, as it would set the US up for the future of finance, while also being a legacy move for Mr Trump, who has gone from crypto sceptic to champion.
'The Genius Act could become a defining milestone for stablecoin policy. Moving stablecoins out of regulatory ambiguity won't just enable institutional participation, it will require it,' said Omar Elassar, managing director of venture capital firm Animoca Brands Middle East.
The National reported that cryptocurrencies will not become mainstream unless the acts enforce strong regulations. We take a look at the three acts and how they would redefine cryptocurrency regulation and its future.
Genius Act: 'Long overdue'
According to the White House, the Genius Act is meant to make America 'the undisputed leader in digital assets'.
The 'long-overdue' law is intended to prioritise consumer protection and strengthen the US dollar's reserve currency status, in addition to improving national security, which is one of the Trump administration's pillars.
Also, the Genius Act is aimed at bringing 'massive' investment and innovation to the US, the world's top economy – although the latter is being challenged by others, most notably by rival China.
The bill details strict regulations for stablecoins, which aim to address cryptocurrencies' shortcomings by pegging their value to a unit of an underlying asset, are often issued on faster blockchains and backed by state-issued tender such as the dollar, pound, euro and highly liquid reserves including government treasuries or commodities such as precious metals.
Also, a stablecoin is different from a central bank digital currency, or CBDC: the former is privately issued, while the latter is government-backed. Both, however, aim to make transactions faster, cheaper and more secure, and would serve emerging markets well.
The Genius Act will usher in the creation of the first-federal regulatory system for stablecoins. It also requires 100 per cent reserve backing with liquid assets like the dollar or short-term Treasuries and mandates issuers to make monthly, public disclosures.
Should a stablecoin issuer become insolvent, the Genius Act will prioritises stablecoin holders' claims over all other creditors, it added.
'The passage of the Genius Act is a true watershed moment for the US. It is a defining step for responsible crypto policy … giving issuers, builders, and regulators the clear rules they have been asking for,' said Ji-Hun Kim, president of the Washington-based Crypto Council for Innovation.
All said, the Genius Act aims to ensure the greenback remains the world's reserve currency, help fight illicit activity in the crypto world and make the US the global leader for digital assets.
Clarity Act: Dual supervision
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, or Clarity Act, meanwhile, aims to establish a regulatory framework for digital commodities – namely, the classification, offering, trading and supervision of digital assets.
It will also define clear lines of jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, two of the top US asset regulators that have been monitoring the digital asset situation and cracked down on crime – most notably the case involving jailed FTX boss Sam Bankman-Fried.
That means it is expected to be a strict law because, 'at its core, it introduces a dual-agency approach to oversight', said Jerry Huang, an associate at Canadian law firm McMillan.
The Clarity Act calls for how digital assets may be offered, sold and traded in the US, and the registration of brokers, dealers and trading facilities, who must maintain fair trading and anti-manipulation systems, ensure real-time transparency and adopt anti-money laundering and know-your-customer programmes.
These would help reduce 'legal uncertainty for issuers, developers and intermediaries, while strengthening investor protections and market integrity', Mr Huang added.
Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act: 'Weapon' control
The summary of the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act is to 'amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy and for other purposes'.
In other words, a CBDC carries the risk of the government being able to surveil people's financial transactions and 'suppress politically unpopular activity', said Congressman Tom Emmer, the bill's main author, who also noted that a CBDC is 'is government-controlled, programmable money'.
'For years, we have worked to educate our colleagues on the dangers of this insidious technology, which would undermine our values and destroy Americans' right to privacy. Now, we must codify [CBDC] to ensure that the United States' digital currency policy remains in the hands of the American people.
The bill aims to prevent future administrations from weaponising CBDC technology against the American people, he said.
The American Bankers Association agreed in a letter to Mr Emmer, saying that a CBDC 'is unnecessary in the US and would present unacceptable risks and costs to the financial system'.
Are these bills bulletproof?
Whether these three legislations work as they are intended to do so remains to be seen, especially as digital assets remain vulnerable to misuse and are being used in illegal activity – a lot.
In 2024, more than 99 per cent of stablecoin volume was legitimate – but stablecoins accounted for about 60 per cent of illicit transaction across the crypto ecosystem, according to an analysis from blockchain platform TRM Labs.
'Their speed, liquidity, and perceived stability can make them attractive for ransomware payments, terrorist financing, romance and investment scams, sanctions evasion, over-the-counter fraud and large-scale laundering,' said Ari Redbord, a vice president at San Francisco-based TRM.
That corroborates an earlier report from Chainalysis, which found out that 63 per cent of all illicit transaction volumes involve stablecoins.
'The integration of stablecoins into traditional finance creates new systemic risk vectors that extend beyond individual protocols or platforms,' analysts at New York-based Chainalysis said.
'A failure of a major stablecoin could trigger cascading liquidations across interconnected protocols, potentially freezing large portions of the DeFi [decentralised finance] ecosystem.'
Hashtags

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


The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Obama ‘treason' claims video won't distract Americans from Epstein files
Following the uproar over the US administration's refusal to release the Department of Justice files related to the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, the crisis between US President Donald Trump and his base has proved to be uncontainable. Information continues to be made public that verifies a friendship between Epstein and Mr Trump and has fuelled speculation that this refusal is based on an effort to suppress information. Strongly buttressing those concerns, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Justice Department informed the President it discovered his name is mentioned throughout the Epstein files. Mr Trump sued the Journal and its owners including Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion on Friday. The paper is noted for meticulous reporting and successfully standing by its stories. Apparently as a means of distraction, Mr Trump made an allegation on his bespoke Truth Social media platform. He posted an AI-generated video depicting former president Barack Obama being arrested and imprisoned by FBI agents. It contained no disclaimers that it was fictional or generated by AI. The fictitious arrest video is prompted by new claims by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that, led by Mr Obama, the Democratic Party attempted to 'steal' the 2016 election that Mr Trump won. The DNI report is unconvincing, based on well-known information, tangential facts, random claims and unverified assertions. But it seems to be the latest effort by the Trump inner circle to push back against the long-standing and well-verified fact that the Russian government intervened in the 2016 election, a finding that he was eventually forced, however briefly, to officially accept. The extensive report compiled by special counsel Robert S Mueller III issued in April 2019 demonstrated conclusively that Russia had engaged in 'sweeping and systematic' intervention efforts to try to ensure the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the victory of Mr Trump. Moreover, it found that one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort constituted 'a grave counterintelligence threat' and had shared intelligence including private Trump campaign polling and other data with Russian intelligence agents. Mr Manafort was convicted of multiple crimes and sentenced to 73 months in prison, but was pardoned by Mr Trump in 2020. Mr Mueller was unable to establish any definitive collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and said that Justice Department rules prevented him from recommending any criminal charges against the President. The scandal has haunted Mr Trump ever since. The attempt by Ms Gabbard to flip the script on Mr Obama and the Democrats through her new report and Mr Trump's effort to use this to try to change the subject from Epstein indicate desperation. So does the new initiative by Speaker Mike Johnson to suddenly adjourn the House of Representatives to avoid any vote – which would probably pass with a few Republicans joining Democrats in demanding release of the files – under current circumstances. Among the most embarrassing new revelations was another report in the Wall Street Journal about a 50th birthday book of tributes to Epstein from his close friends that includes, allegedly, a risque drawing and intriguing note from Mr Trump. The two men were reportedly close until a 2004 real estate dispute. But this apparent effort to shift the topic may fail, both because few believe that the FBI has arrested Mr Obama, and only the most gullible will prefer the new Gabbard report over the existing Mueller one. Moreover, by linking, once again, the Russia intervention scandal, which was all-too real, to speculation about the Epstein files, the administration may end up fuelling the idea that it has something to be concerned about. The Justice Department says it is planning to meet Epstein's main accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy sentence for sex trafficking. There is a potential win-win scenario in the offing. If Mr Trump were to pardon Maxwell, and she were then to confirm that he had little or nothing to do with Epstein, problem – presumably – solved. It's far-fetched at this stage, but not much more than a President posting a video of his predecessor being thrown in a dungeon. As for the idea of Mr Obama being arrested, it's admittedly a provocation. Until it isn't. There is no reason to think that the FBI is contemplating arresting the former president, and there are certainly no grounds to do that. But there are also grounds to be alarmed that Mr Trump is trying to acculturate the American public to the idea that his political enemies might be rounded up and tossed in prison. There were many possible distractions available to the President. Depicting him organising the arrest and imprisonment of his rival and predecessor is a disturbing choice indeed.


The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Strong dollar sounds good but a weak one is better for US economy, Trump says
President Donald Trump on Friday said a strong US dollar "sounds good", but touted reasons why a weaker greenback is better for the American economy. The dollar index, which measures the greenback's strength against six major currencies, steadied on Friday after hitting two-week lows earlier in the week. It is still down roughly 10 per cent over the six months Mr Trump has been in office. 'So when we have a strong dollar, one thing happens: It sounds good. But you don't do any tourism. You can't sell tractors, you can't sell trucks, you can't sell anything,' Mr Trump said at the White House before leaving on a trip to Scotland. 'You make a hell of a lot more money' with a weaker dollar. Mr Trump has often complained that dollar strength blunts US export competitiveness and hurts US manufacturing and jobs. Mr Trump said manufacturers would be the first to benefit from a falling dollar, citing construction and mining equipment maker Caterpillar, whose shares have risen 16 per cent over the last month. Japan and China fought for weaker currencies for decades and were able to dominate markets over the years, Mr Trump said.


Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
The need to focus on the economy's significance
The size of the national debt has become a preoccupation across the political spectrum. Democrats have complained about the $3.4 trillion increase in the debt projected to result from President Donald Trump's tax cut. This represents 10 percent of the projected gross domestic product for 2035. Republicans also scream about the debt, even as they pass tax cuts to make it larger at every opportunity. Let's be clear: The bulk of the current deficit is the result of reduced tax revenue, not legislated increases in spending. Tax revenue peaked at 20% of GDP in 2000. For those who don't remember, the economy was booming that year, with a 4% unemployment rate and 4.1% GDP growth, according to the Tribune News Service. The latest projections, following the passage of Trump's tax cuts, show that tax revenue will be just over 16% of GDP next year. The loss of tax revenue, compared with the 2000 peak, will add $1.2 trillion to the 2026 deficit. While spending has increased relative to the economy, most of the increase was not due to profligate government spending but rather the result of higher Social Security and Medicare spending. This rise is because the huge baby boom cohort was in their prime working years in 2000. Now they are in their 60s and 70s and mostly collecting benefits from these programmes. Stepping back from the causes of deficits and debt for a moment, we should ask: Is the debt a big problem? A debt of $35 trillion or $40 trillion can scare people and be good fodder for political rhetoric, but the real question is how it affects people's lives. None of us sees the debt, in the sense that it does not directly affect us in our daily lives. We do see the economy. We know whether it is creating jobs and whether wages are outpacing prices. If the economy can generate growth at a respectable pace and it is broadly shared, we can say that we, and our children, will be better off in the future than we are today. If the economy can sustain 2.5% growth, we will, on average, be 30% richer 10 years from now. And that will be true even if the debt continues to grow as is now projected. Despite the fearmongering rhetoric, investors will not flee from holding the assets and the currency of a country with a strong, rapidly growing economy. However, recent policy decisions should make us question whether we will have a strong, rapidly growing economy. The Trump administration has made it a top priority to sever longstanding trade relations, instead imposing tariffs and making deals that have the lifespan of one of his golf games. This will make other countries reluctant to trade with the United States. Canada, the European Union, and much of the rest of the world are rapidly looking to make trade deals that exclude the United States. Trump is also attempting to chase out a large share of the US workforce. This is most immediately the case with undocumented workers who mostly hold low-paying jobs in construction, restaurants and farming. However, the anti-immigrant policies are also chasing away highly skilled workers who are concerned about being targeted by ICE agents empowered to arrest and detain anyone they decide could be undocumented. The Trump administration is also gutting funding for the research that has been the basis of US leadership in areas like medical technology and artificial Intelligence. It has declared war on the energy revolution, removing subsidies and imposing taxes on electric vehicles and clean energy. These policies almost seem designed to be an axe blow to the country's economy. A year ago, the economy was growing at a healthy pace, unemployment was low, and inflation was falling; we were seeing an unprecedented boom in factory construction.