
America's Genius Act for crypto regulation shows no ingenuity
The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, which Congress passed this week, would regulate stablecoins and effectively transform them from a security to a means of payment.
While there is a need for some regulation, as some retailers are considering issuing their own stablecoins, mainstreaming cryptocurrency is hardly a genius move.
The bill would introduce a tremendous amount of risk to the financial system and to consumers. And for what purpose? The US already has a means of payment—it's called the dollar—and it works pretty well.
For most of crypto's history, its use case, other than paying for goods and services in the underground economy, has been unclear. Tokenization does have the potential to make payments quicker and more efficient.
Also read: Mint Explainer: CoinDCX loses $44 mn to hackers. Why are crypto firms especially vulnerable?
The big problem has always been volatility: Cryptocurrencies are not a stable store of value, and therefore not a useful means of payment. Stablecoins solve this by striving to maintain a dollar peg.
They can do this in several ways, the most common of which is to use low-risk assets such as Treasury bills as backing.
This will not produce a perfect peg to the dollar. The exchange rate between the dollar and Tether, the most popular coin backed mostly by Treasury bills, still fluctuates. It is more stable than an unhedged cryptocurrency, but not perfect.
Crypto coin issuers are very similar to banks of the 1830s, which also issued their own currencies and were regulated by the states.
In a similar spirit, under the Genius Act, companies that issue less than $10 billion worth of coins would also be regulated by the states while the US Federal Reserve would regulate bigger issuers. The thing about the 1830s is that the system was very chaotic.
Constant oversight was necessary, because any hint of currency devaluation created bank runs and failures. States had different standards, and several underregulated their local banks, creating a lack of confidence in the system.
Back then consumers had no choice, as no universal fiat currency was widely available. Today, of course, Americans can just use dollars.
Vendors don't have to worry that their value will fluctuate and holders don't have to worry that it will collapse. The central bank will ensure that it doesn't. And despite the occasional bout of inflation, the Fed has a great track record.
Also read: Subhash Chandra Garg: Don't vacillate on a regulatory framework for crypto assets
Mainstreaming stablecoins also poses risks to the financial system. Stablecoin issuers are already becoming a major source of demand for US Treasuries.
Tether purchased more than $33 billion of them last year and now owns more than Germany. If the market takes off, some banks estimate stablecoin issuers could be a captive buyer for trillions of dollars in Treasuries.
The government might find that extra demand appealing, as it would help keep rates low. But it also introduces systemic risk. If there is ever a run on a large coin, all these Treasuries would need to be sold quickly—potentially causing a financial crisis or risking a bailout.
It's worth asking what the benefits of the Genius Act might be. It would make payments more efficient than the current system of using banks and credit and debit cards—which all charge non-trivial fees. But for stablecoin issuers to turn a profit, they'd also have to charge fees.
Currently they earn most of their revenues from returns on their reserve assets. But to comply with effective regulation or just inspire confidence, these assets need to have a stable price (relative to the dollar) and be perfectly liquid.
In other words, they have to be the kind of asset that pays no return. The only way to make money while also paying compliance costs would be to charge fees. Probably not much less than what credit-card companies or banks charge.
There are also concerns specific to the Genius Act itself: There is not enough regulatory scrutiny, so illicit use would still be possible. There are inadequate provisions for bankruptcy and for enforcement.
And then there are concerns about conflicts of interest—particularly with the president, whose family issues its own coins.
But the biggest question is why the US government wants to make it easier to use stablecoins as a means of payment. Not only does it create needless risk, but it also undermines the government's own function as the issuer of the dollar.
Also read: Defence alert: Crypto is turning into a geopolitical weapon
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has a better idea: To get the benefits of cryptocurrency while minimizing risks, and to better integrate blockchain technology into central banking, just tokenize the US dollar. ©Bloomberg
Hashtags

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


Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Rahul looks back at where he faltered: Didn't protect OBCs because I couldn't understand their issues at the time
A day after he said that the Congress 'fell short' of understanding issues faced by the OBCs and that 'opened up the space' for the BJP, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Friday said that he didn't protect the OBC community's interests earlier in his political career as the issues faced by them are complex and not easily visible. Addressing a Bhagidari Nyay Sammelan of OBCs at the Talkatora Stadium in Delhi, Gandhi said that while he should score well on issues related to Tribals, Dalits, minorities and women, he couldn't understand the problems of OBCs and admitted that he didn't do enough for the community. He also said that he will be working 'double' on this front from now on. 'Since 2004, I have been in politics. Twenty-one years have passed. When I look back, and in a way, analyse myself – where I did the right thing and where I lacked – I see a couple of big issues. I worked on the Land Acquisition Bill, MGNREGA, Right to Food, Tribal Bill… These things I did well. I feel I should get good marks on issues of Tribals, Dalits, minorities, women… When I look back, I see one thing clearly. I lacked on one thing, made a mistake – what was it? The Congress and I made a mistake. I should have protected the OBC section; I didn't. The reason for this was that I didn't understand your issues at the time,' he said. Gandhi said that around a decade ago, he 'could see the problems faced by Dalits' – 'it was clear and I understood it'. 'Untouchability is their history,' he said. Talking of Tribals, Gandhi said, 'It is easy to understand issues of Tribals – jungle (forest), jal (water), zameen (land) are right there for you to see.' 'But the OBC issues are hidden, and not easy to see. My regret is that if I knew your history and issues, I would have got the caste census done then. And it is my mistake and not the Congress's. The good thing is that if I had got the caste census done then, it wouldn't have been as good as it will be now,' he said. Gandhi said that the Telangana caste survey is like a 'tsunami' and that its 'aftershock' will be felt soon. 'The way the tsunami came… The earthquake that led to the tsunami wasn't seen. It was under the sea… When the tsunami came, its impact was felt 2-3 hours later. The same has happened in Telangana,' he said.


Hans India
21 minutes ago
- Hans India
SC extends relief for Rahul Gandhi in Veer Savarkar defamation case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday extended its order staying the summons issued to Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case related to his alleged derogatory remarks about freedom fighter Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. In November 2022, during his Bharat Jodo Yatra, Rahul Gandhi made defamatory remarks against Savarkar at a rally in Maharashtra's Akola. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih deferred the scheduled hearing for four weeks after a letter seeking adjournment was submitted in the matter. In the meantime, the Justice Datta-led Bench ordered extension of the interim relief originally granted to Rahul Gandhi on April 25. Further, it asked the complainant, advocate Nripendra Pandey, to file his reply within two weeks and granted liberty to Rahul Gandhi to file a rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter. In an earlier hearing, the apex court had cautioned Rahul Gandhi against making 'irresponsible statements', specifically asking him not to speak anything against freedom fighters. The Supreme Court had warned that if the Congress leader made any such comments in the future, it would initiate "suo motu" action against him. 'Let's be clear, any further statement and we will take suo moto! We will not allow you to speak anything about our freedom fighters. They have given us freedom, and this is how we treat them?' said the Justice Datta-led bench as it dealt with Rahul Gandhi's petition to quash a 2022 defamation case filed against him. After senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, gave an oral undertaking that the Congress leader would refrain from making such comments in future, the apex court had passed an interim order staying the order of the lower court summoning him to face trial for the offences under Sections 153-A and 505 of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code (IPC). Before this, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had declined to exercise its inherent powers in favour of Rahul Gandhi, who had sought the quashing of the entire legal proceedings. A single-judge Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, in its order passed on April 4, said that Rahul Gandhi had the statutory remedy of filing a revision against the order of the trial court. Under the IPC, 1860, Section 153-A addressed the offence of 'promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, caste, etc.," and Section 505 dealt with 'statements conducing to public mischief".


NDTV
21 minutes ago
- NDTV
Kremlin's New Cryptocurrency: How A7A5 Could Help Russia Evade Sanctions
Russia could be turning to a new cryptocurrency called A7A5 to allow money to flow in and out of the country and avoid Western sanctions, experts have told AFP. Multiple rounds of international sanctions have been imposed on Moscow since its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine seeking to ramp up economic pressure to halt the war. But the launch of A7A5 in February this year opened up an alternative payment method for Russian businesses and individuals to sidestep sanctions when trading with foreign partners, the UK-based non-profit Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) said in a report. A7A5 is a stablecoin -- a form of cryptocurrency backed by traditional assets -- in this case pegged to the ruble, making it harder for Western authorities to monitor than dollar-based alternatives. It was launched by a pro-Russian Moldovan oligarch and a Russian state-owned bank as "the first ever ruble-pegged stablecoin," George Voloshin from anti-money laundering group ACAMS told AFP. While it is not widely used yet, experts say its creation marks a significant step in Russia's efforts to reduce its dependence on major crypto companies -- many of which cooperate with Western governments. Russian stablecoin Since Russia was kicked out of the international banking system SWIFT and hit with asset freezes and investment bans, Moscow has already turned to crypto to sidestep financial restrictions imposed by the United States and its allies. Stablecoins are especially attractive because they are less volatile than other cryptocurrencies. People have also used cryptocurrency to donate directly to both the Ukrainian army and Russian militias, according to several analytics firms such as Elliptic. But Russia has faced a problem: USDT, the most popular stablecoin, is tied to the US dollar and controlled by a company called Tether, which cooperates with US and European authorities. Earlier this year, Tether blocked $28 million in USDT held in wallets on Garantex, Russia's largest crypto exchange, which was shut down following a global crackdown on illegal transactions. "That was a real wake-up call" for Russia, said Elise Thomas, senior investigator at CIR. "It made them think that they need their own stablecoin, they need something that they control," she added. Just before Garantex was shut down, tens of millions of dollars were moved from USDT into A7A5, according to data from crypto tracking firm Global Ledger. How it works A7A5 is backed by deposits in Promsvyazbank, a Russian bank under sanctions for its ties to the government and the military. The coin is traded on Grinex, a crypto exchange based in Kyrgyzstan -- a country seen as friendlier to Russian interests and less vulnerable to Western pressure. A7A5 is also registered in Kyrgyzstan rather than Russia because the country offers a crypto-friendly legal environment and is less exposed to "sanctions and other economic pressures," project director Leonid Shumakov said in an interview posted online. Less than six months after its launch, around $150 million is now held in A7A5. These transactions are not necessarily illegal, but they could become problematic if used by sanctioned individuals or entities to reconnect with the global financial system, warned ACAMS's Voloshin. The man behind the A7 group, which developed A7A5, is Ilan Shor, a Moldovan businessman and politician now living in Russia. Investigators found links between A7A5 and Shor's political activities in Moldova, including websites related to both sharing the same IP address. These findings have suggested that the cryptocurrency could be used as a tool for political influence. Shor and his company have already been sanctioned by the UK, and more recently by the European Union, which accused them of trying to meddle in Moldova's 2024 presidential election and its referendum on joining the EU -- all while keeping close ties with Moscow.