Compiled & Edited: Deep Tide TechFlow
Guest: Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy and Operations at Circle
Host: Laura Shin
Podcast Source: Unchained
Title: With the GENIUS Act Passed, Can Crypto Compete With Banks?
Air Date: July 19, 2025
Key Takeaways
After years of antagonistic attitudes, the U.S. has finally passed its first federal law regarding the crypto industry.
The bipartisan-supported stablecoin legislation (GENIUS Act) was signed into law by President Trump after a last-minute standoff in Congress. Although the passage of the bill was considered a foregone conclusion, the process became tumultuous this week, with Democrats raising objections due to Trump's ties to cryptocurrency and the Freedom Caucus suddenly rebelling against the provisions opposing Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
Now that the bill has passed, what impact will it actually bring? Who will benefit or suffer from it?
In this episode, Dante Disparte, Circle's Chief Strategy Officer and one of the key figures behind this legislation, explains the following:
How this bill won bipartisan support amid political tensions
Why banks may think twice before issuing stablecoins
Why Circle is applying for a national trust bank license
Additionally, the program also discusses the debate surrounding stablecoins with attached interest, how this bill fits into the broader financial regulatory system, and whether American consumers and the dollar will benefit from it.
Summary of Key Points
The right to use currency should be as free as possible.
The key point is that the crypto industry has finally received the legalization it has long desired, a clear path in U.S. law and regulation, and an opportunity for competition.
The significance of the (GENIUS Act) goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. This may be the first financial regulatory act in U.S. history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and protecting consumers, with its core focus on establishing clear rules for the market and building a rule-based competitive environment.
The (GENIUS Act) establishes clear rules for the market, ultimately making American consumers and market participants the biggest winners, while further consolidating the U.S. dollar's position in the global economy.
The most important point of the (GENIUS Act) is the concept of international reciprocity, which grants the U.S. Treasury the power to promote the American regulatory framework globally. This is crucial because it ensures that the U.S. can dominate the formulation of international rules, rather than passively accept rules from other countries. This applies not only to cryptocurrencies but also to the global usage of stablecoins.
In my career, I often represented American interests at international institutions and government bank meetings. Although I am a representative of the private sector, this time, the U.S. finally has a formal voice in the formulation of these rules.
There remains a significant gap in financial access worldwide, and the U.S. and other countries urgently need alternative payment systems. Many companies may compete around data in the future, treating data as an asset. In this age where data is referred to as 'the new oil', can blockchain become the 'new tool' to carry this data? This is a thought-provoking question.
The fully reserved type of stablecoin model addresses a core issue from the early days of cryptocurrency—the regret consumers feel due to price volatility. This type of asset is not only a pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also an important medium of exchange in the internet economy.
The (GENIUS Act) and the upcoming U.S. market structure regulatory bill will gradually shift cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology from obvious applications to deeper infrastructure, and their impact will gradually become apparent.
I hope that in the next five years, we can not only consolidate the U.S. dollar as the core currency of the internet economy and use it as a strategic advantage for the U.S. in global competition, but also allow more people to enjoy safe and reliable financial services based on smart devices.
'Crypto Week' has been better than anyone expected
Laura: This is a very important moment for the crypto industry. This week marks the end of what Congress calls 'Crypto Week'. We are discussing the (GENIUS Act), the first major crypto legislation in the U.S., which will soon be signed into law by President Trump. This act is the result of years of collaborative efforts by several members of Congress to regulate the development of stablecoins. Before we began recording, you mentioned that you have been fighting for this for seven years. While many believed that this bill could pass smoothly at the beginning of this administration, the actual process turned out to be much more complicated.
So what led to this suspense, and how was it ultimately passed?
Dante: Yes, if 'Crypto Week' didn't have some political maneuvering and dramatic elements, it wouldn't feel complete. One of the most dramatic events this week was the actions against Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which indeed surprised many.
However, the key lies in the final results, which actually exceeded everyone's expectations. First, the (GENIUS Act) passed with more than 300 votes in support, with 102 Democratic legislators voting alongside Republican legislators. The passage of this bill is evidently a significant bipartisan cooperation achievement in the current highly polarized political environment in the U.S., reflecting national interests and the important position of the dollar in the global economy. This is undoubtedly a tremendous achievement.
Additionally, two more bills have also made significant progress. The (Clarity Act) is the House's response to the legislation on crypto market structure, which has also gained widespread bipartisan support and is expected to undergo in-depth discussions in the Senate. Another provision opposing CBDCs further indicates that the U.S. will actively participate in the global digital currency competition by regulating U.S. dollar stablecoins.
How the (GENIUS Act) won bipartisan support amid major political friction
Laura: As you mentioned, this bill ultimately gained widespread support. However, during the process, we also saw numerous objections from Democrats regarding Trump administration's business activities related to cryptocurrency, especially the initiative of World Freedom Financial to launch its own stablecoin.
I am very curious about how the Democrats were persuaded to vote in larger numbers to support this bill. After all, this seemed unlikely in the early stages.
Dante: First of all, to be frank, crypto legislation has become a bipartisan issue in the U.S. This leads me to jokingly say that I have facilitated unity in Washington twice in my career. The first time was when the Libra project was launched, when both Republicans and Democrats reached an agreement in their opposition to the project, leading to many hearings and controversies. Nevertheless, this opposition attitude prompted an unexpected unity between the two parties.
Back to today, this bill has gone through numerous hearings, cross-agency meetings, and public consultations. The Biden administration issued an executive order on digital assets, while the Trump administration took a sincere and growth-oriented whole-of-government approach to promoting the development of related technologies, especially in areas related to artificial intelligence. However, without properly addressing these key interests, including potential political disagreements, it would have been difficult for the (GENIUS Act) to gain the support of 18 Democratic senators in the Senate, let alone achieve such significant success in the House. Therefore, this is undoubtedly a significant victory.
For us, the key is that the crypto industry has finally received the legalization it has long desired, a clear path in U.S. law and regulation, and an opportunity for competition.
Why Dante believes the significance of the bill goes beyond cryptocurrency itself
Laura: Currently, it is widely believed that Circle is one of the biggest winners of this bill. So, what specific provisions does this bill have regarding the regulation of which types of companies? Which companies are included, and which are excluded? Clearly, some companies can legally conduct stablecoin-related business in the U.S., while others must meet higher standards to enter this field. Could you briefly explain the impact of this bill on different types of participants and how it changes their operating models?
Dante: First, I believe the significance of the (GENIUS Act) goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. This may be the first financial regulatory act in U.S. history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and protecting consumers, with its core focus on establishing clear rules for the market and building a rule-based competitive environment. I am pleased to share some unique aspects of this act.
First, it retains states' regulatory authority over banks and payments, which has been a significant obstacle in past attempts to legislate stablecoins. The U.S. financial system features 'fintech federalism', where states independently regulate banks and payments. The (GENIUS Act) respects and continues this tradition. Moreover, under the provisions of the bill, banks, non-bank institutions, and credit cooperatives can issue dollar-denominated payment stablecoins at a scale of $1 billion or more. These entities need to be incorporated into the federal regulatory framework, primarily overseen by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), while also promoting the possibility of international competition.
This bill also includes many subtle provisions, such as the regulations regarding the international portability of products, ensuring that products compliant with similar regulatory structures from other countries can circulate freely between the U.S. and abroad. Notably, there is the so-called 'Libra clause'. According to this clause, if a non-bank or commercial company wishes to issue stablecoins or products that may be classified as Vanity Stablecoins (Note from Deep Tide TechFlow: Vanity Stablecoins are an emerging concept of stablecoins, primarily used to meet personalized or branded customization needs. It allows users to create stablecoins with unique identifiers based on their preferences or identities, typically based on blockchain technology.), they not only need to establish an independent entity (similar to Circle, rather than a bank), but must also address a series of competition law issues and ultimately obtain approval from a special committee of the Treasury. This sets important protective mechanisms for the market while also raising the barriers to entry. For banks, if they plan to issue stablecoins under the (GENIUS Act), they must establish independent entities, separate from core banking operations, and manage the issuance and redemption activities of stablecoins in a completely different way, rather than operating like traditional banks managing loans and credit creation. This regulatory approach is even more conservative than during the so-called deposit token era.
This also raises an important question: Are banks willing to adopt conservative asset-liability management strategies, avoiding risks, not using leverage, not making loans, and focusing solely on issuing stablecoins? Or are they more willing to engage in competition in this niche market by providing core banking services? Overall, this bill establishes clear rules for the market, and I believe the ultimate winners will be American consumers and market participants, while further solidifying the U.S. dollar's position in the global economy.
How Circle plans to compete with banking giants
Laura: Let's talk about the movements of large banks again. This week, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Citibank are all working to launch stablecoins or are at least considering this issue. Although this bill does not fully cover the actions of these banks, they are indeed operating in the same space as Circle. JPMorgan also plans to launch deposit tokens. Currently, Circle's USDC is primarily used in trading and decentralized finance (DeFi) and has become its largest business partner through collaboration with Coinbase. In addition, USDC will be used by millions of Shopify merchants on Coinbase's Base network.
Therefore, Circle is currently more like a crypto-native project, while these banks have a larger distribution among non-crypto users, which is evidently a larger market. So how does Circle compete with these large banks?
Dante: This is an interesting question. I believe that discussions about competition between digital currencies among banks, non-banks, and even central banks have always been like this. Our operating model and long-term belief is that once very clear road rules are established, tokenized forms of currency are not breakthroughs; in fact, the technological breakthroughs in banking and payments lie in the infrastructure.
Our long-term vision is to build an internet-based financial system that achieves global connectivity of funds and financial services through blockchain technology. As you understand, USDC is a multi-chain innovation aimed at promoting interoperability between different blockchains. It is committed to building trusted financial infrastructure that can bring funds and financial services to areas that traditional banks and payment systems cannot reach.
This is not a strategy that opposes banks. In fact, our strategy heavily relies on collaboration with banks, leveraging the trust and security systems they have built in the real economy. The introduction of the (GENIUS Act) will undoubtedly trigger competition on multiple levels, which is a positive driving force for the U.S. economy and the entire market category. At the same time, it is also the best way to ensure that digital assets and cryptocurrencies can achieve widespread adoption, as all of this requires complete interoperability with the traditional financial system.
Another key point is that before the introduction of the (GENIUS Act), the U.S. lacked a clear framework for regulating cryptocurrencies and non-bank payment systems. Take the Libra project as an example; due to the lack of relevant laws in the U.S., Libra ultimately chose to establish itself in Switzerland, where it could be regulated as financial infrastructure. The implementation of the (GENIUS Act) provides the U.S. with a 'America First' institutional framework while avoiding the limitations of 'America acting alone'. This allows companies like Circle, as well as other American enterprises including traditional banks, to compete in the global market without worrying about their business models or internet-based digital dollars being constrained by rules from other countries. This is especially important as the competition between stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) is increasingly becoming the focus of the global financial sector. Discussions over the past week indicate that many countries and financial institutions are attempting to break away from dependence on the dollar while searching for alternative payment systems.
Laura: Okay, I want to confirm your point. I initially thought this bill was mainly targeted at domestic business activities in the U.S., but from your earlier description, it seems it may also affect the use of stablecoins in other countries?
Dante: Exactly. This is actually an important clause in the (GENIUS Act), originally proposed in the House. You may remember that there were different proposals regarding stablecoin legislation between the House and the Senate. The bill proposed by the House was called the 'Stablecoin Act', while the Senate proposal was the (GENIUS Act).
Ultimately, the (GENIUS Act) absorbed many of the improvements from the House version and thus received support from 102 Democratic legislators. One of the most important points is the concept of international reciprocity, which gives the U.S. Treasury the power to promote the American regulatory framework globally. This is crucial because it ensures that the U.S. can dominate the formulation of international rules rather than passively accept rules from other countries. This applies not only to cryptocurrencies but also to the global use of stablecoins. For me personally, this is also an important milestone. In my career, I often represented American interests at international institutions and government bank meetings. Although I am a representative of the private sector, this time, the U.S. finally has a formal voice in the formulation of these rules.
What goals does Circle hope to achieve by applying for a national trust bank license?
Laura: In late June of this year, Circle submitted an application to plan to create a national trust bank in the U.S. This will allow Circle to directly manage its own reserves and provide cryptocurrency custody services for institutional clients. Please elaborate on Circle's plans for this national trust bank.
Dante: Yes, custody and safeguarding services are part of our plans. Moreover, with the implementation of the (GENIUS Act), non-bank stablecoin issuers in the U.S. must obtain a charter and trust license from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Therefore, our initiative is clearly laying the groundwork for future regulatory requirements. This strategy is not surprising as it aligns with how we operate under the MiCA framework in Europe.
Our business objective has always been to pursue excellence. While Europe spent years developing the MiCA framework, we realized we needed to establish a branch in Europe. To that end, we chose France and obtained an electronic money license, ensuring that Circle's USDC and euro stablecoins became among the first products compliant with MiCA regulations. Therefore, as U.S. regulations improve, it is logical for us to adopt a similar model.
Laura: I would like to ask a question about competing with large banks. (Wealth) recently reported that JPMorgan plans to charge fintech companies for using their data. Suppose there is a fintech company, like Plaid, that connects Coinbase (your biggest partner) with customer banks. If the bank is JPMorgan, then the previously free data interface may start to charge fees. Do you think this change will hinder Circle's development? How would Circle respond if similar bank charges occurred?
Dante: This is indeed a complex issue, and it is currently difficult to predict specific impacts. However, one thing is clear: the legitimacy of currency usage has been a contentious issue for many years, and this is one of the reasons I got into this industry. I have always believed that the right to use currency should be as free as possible.
Additionally, the payment methods of the traditional banking system are akin to the era of landline telephones, where longer call times incur higher costs. Therefore, many companies may compete around data in the future, treating data as an asset. In this age where data is referred to as 'the new oil', can blockchain become the 'new tool' to carry this data? This is a thought-provoking question.
Why financial privacy is so important in the U.S. system
Dante: The American society's demand for financial privacy is deeply rooted, which is one of the main reasons against Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). However, truly safeguarding financial privacy is no easy task; it requires the establishment of clear rules and a fair competitive system to provide complete financial services to users securely and privately. Crypto wallets play an important role in this process, offering users secure tools to store and manage cryptocurrencies while protecting personal privacy.
Currently, stablecoins are achieving this goal through the U.S. dollar, supported by mobile digital wallets, open-source wallets, and blockchain infrastructure, allowing it to cover every user comprehensively. In a world after the passage of the (GENIUS Act), consumers will have more choices, enjoying financial services while protecting their privacy. If some large institutions try to compete by monetizing data, the implementation of the (GENIUS Act) will provide alternatives for consumers, allowing them to do so without sacrificing their privacy.
What is the difference between deposit tokens and stablecoins?
Laura: Recently, the topic of deposit tokens has started to gain attention, and I previously did not understand this concept. Each unit of a deposit token represents a portion of a bank deposit. So how does it differ in use from stablecoins? Do deposit tokens have the potential for widespread application? In what scenarios might they be used? Is it a competitive relationship with stablecoins, or are they merely different in their uses? How should consumers view the two?
Dante: This question is indeed a bit complicated. As a supporter of the movement opposing Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), I have conducted in-depth research and supported my views with some academic papers. There is indeed some similarity between deposit tokens and stablecoins. The (GENIUS Act) allows banks to issue payment stablecoins but stipulates that payment stablecoins issued by banks are the only legal product. The bill sets forth some key requirements for the legislation of payment stablecoins.
If I were a board member of a large bank, I would pay attention to the following questions: First, issuers cannot directly pay returns, meaning this digital currency will not compete with traditional deposit business, but is a fully reserved form of digital currency. This also raises a question—if deposit tokens are issued by a failed bank (like Credit Suisse), would you accept it? Because if deposit tokens fail to comply with the (GENIUS Act), they may become a digital representation of the risks on the bank's balance sheet. This means that your right to redeem for dollars at face value may be affected by risks such as loans, credit risks, and term risks on the bank's balance sheet. Therefore, the (GENIUS Act) requires banks to issue stablecoins through independent entities and independent balance sheets to ensure their safety.
Moreover, the (GENIUS Act) has completely ended the era of misleading stablecoins of the past. For example, cases like Terra Luna can no longer trade in the U.S. market. If stablecoin issuers fail to prove the authenticity of their assets (i.e., through the 'Jerry Maguire test'. Note from Deep Tide TechFlow: this is a metaphor commonly used in entrepreneurship, investment, or product development, originating from the classic movie 'Jerry Maguire'. The protagonist loses most of his clients for sticking to his principles but ultimately wins a loyal client. Here, the 'Jerry Maguire test' can be understood as a key step in verifying market demand and early ecosystem support, measuring whether stablecoins can establish a foothold in a competitive blockchain ecosystem.), they may even face criminal penalties. The (GENIUS Act) imposes strict requirements on trust, transparency, and auditability, and imposes criminal liability on relevant responsible parties. This ensures that crypto dollar pseudocoins will no longer appear under the guise of stablecoins and ultimately collapse.
What actions Circle might take when interest-bearing stablecoins are finally approved
Laura: I know stablecoins inherently have a certain degree of centralization, but it is completely different from the case of Terra Luna. However, I want to discuss stablecoins with attached interest. Clearly, current law does not allow for such stablecoins, and this provision does not fully align with consumer interests. In some respects, this even seems a bit counterintuitive, as this provision is actually driven by the Democrats. However, this is a positive for Circle and similar companies. I understand that the current law will not change in the short term, but in the future, when consumers realize that this provision is not friendly to them, it may prompt policy adjustments. If the law allows for stablecoins with attached interest to emerge, Circle may need to compete for more customers by offering returns to consumers. While this may not be your current focus, I believe this could happen in the future.
Dante: We have indeed considered this issue. Let me share our perspective. The fully reserved type of stablecoin model addresses a core issue from the early days of cryptocurrency—the regret consumers feel due to price volatility. Bitcoin has gradually lost its function as a medium of exchange on the internet due to severe price fluctuations and appreciation, instead being defined as digital gold rather than a daily consumable asset. For example, the 'Bitcoin Pizza Day' incident is a typical case that has generated demand for fully reserved stable assets. This type of asset is not only a pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also an important medium of exchange in the internet economy.
Currently, both MiCA and the (GENIUS Act) prohibit stablecoin issuers from directly paying returns to token holders, but we believe returns are a key feature of cryptocurrency. Through secondary markets, DeFi, and lending functions related to programmable currency, returns can be achieved. The (GENIUS Act) prohibits regulated issuers from directly paying returns, but returns, as an innovation of secondary markets, are one of the core functions of this field. Just as physical dollars create loans and credit on bank balance sheets, fully reserved types of stablecoins have also become an important foundational layer of the internet economy. Unlike traditional funds, consumers can enjoy other advantages of funds, such as liquidity unaffected by bank holidays, programmability, composability, and the flexibility of DeFi. If the funds themselves are not fully reserved or carry risks, these advantages will not be realized. This is also why we support the (GENIUS Act) and MiCA, as these two proposals have become the legal foundation for stablecoins in Europe and the U.S.
Additionally, the U.S. also needs further regulatory structure for the crypto market to address other issues present in the market, such as how to define commodities, securities, and digital collectibles, and how to handle integrated economic activities that cross banks, payment regulation, and capital markets. I believe the innovations in secondary markets and the yield function of stablecoins will welcome new developmental opportunities in this field.
Laura: I have a few more questions about Circle's recent IPO. The stock was trading at about $234 an hour ago, far above the IPO price of $31.
I am very curious about the atmosphere in the company since the IPO, as I believe there may be a gap between the expectations before the IPO and the actual results, at least in the cryptocurrency field. Is this your feeling too, or are you surprised?
Dante: Unfortunately, I cannot speak on behalf of the entire Circle regarding this issue. I cannot say much about stock prices or the IPO itself, but becoming a publicly traded company has always been a long-term goal for Circle. As a public company, we remain focused on the core principles of driving the company's growth, which is long-term development. This may be the most I can share.
However, I believe that the real news focus right now is the (GENIUS Act). In fact, I am currently heading to the White House to attend a law signing ceremony that I have personally invested a lot of effort into. This moment is significant not only for the company but also for the entire nation and market, as we finally gain legal clarity in the U.S.
How this new law might affect ordinary Americans and their finances
Laura: Last question. If we look ahead five years, how do you think this law will affect the lives of ordinary Americans, consumer rights, and the U.S.'s position in the world?
Dante: I once wrote an article titled 'When Blockchain Is No Longer a Buzzword, How Do We Change the World with It?'. The publication of this article is also thanks to you, Laura Shin, as you were the editor at (Forbes) who gave me this opportunity. I believe the (GENIUS Act) and the upcoming U.S. market structure regulatory bill will gradually shift cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology from obvious applications to deeper infrastructure, and their impact will gradually become apparent.
I hope that in the next five years, we can not only consolidate the U.S. dollar as the core currency of the internet economy and use it as a strategic advantage for the U.S. in global competition, but also allow more people to enjoy safe and reliable financial services based on smart devices. These services include not only simple payment functions but also complex financial activities such as savings, loans, and credit, providing consumers with greater convenience and benefits. Therefore, the U.S. has officially entered this field.
Just yesterday, I attended a global meeting and interacted with about forty to fifty representatives from international regulatory agencies and central banks. This is the first time in my seven years of working in this field that I can confidently say the U.S. is establishing a legal framework for cryptocurrency and the blockchain industry, no longer relying solely on the performance of the private sector to represent the nation.
