The repeated legislative process of US stablecoin and the differences between the two parties indeed bring significant uncertainty to industry innovation and user trust. The Democrats' withdrawal of support focuses on the weakening of anti-money laundering (AML) and national security provisions in the GENIUS Act. The current bill attempts to establish a federal framework, but some provisions have sparked controversy. The $10 billion threshold for non-bank institutions to issue stablecoins has been criticized as 'overly biased towards traditional banks,' potentially stifling the participation of emerging enterprises. This dual regulatory system, if lacking coordination, will increase compliance costs and hinder the development of small and medium-sized innovators. The executive orders from the Trump era still influence the current legislative direction. Its emphasis on 'economic freedom' may exacerbate the Democrats' resistance to deregulation, especially regarding questions of conflicts of interest.

The current political stalemate will continue to hinder stablecoin innovation in the short term, but in the long run, a clear regulatory framework remains an inevitable trend. For industry participants, the following preparations are necessary:

- Risk hedging: Diversifying issuance locations and compliance strategies, such as simultaneously entering the European market regulated by MiCA;

- Technical reserves: Enhancing on-chain compliance tools to adapt to possible future regulations;

- User education: Bridging the trust gap caused by regulatory absence through transparent operations.

If the US can resolve the bipartisan differences and balance innovation with safety, stablecoins are still expected to become a key tool in consolidating the dollar's position; conversely, a regulatory vacuum may hand over its dominance to competitors.