Stablecoin and blockchain bills signal regulatory momentum
Washington is making significant strides in cryptocurrency regulation, particularly focusing on stablecoins and blockchain technology, signaling strong regulatory momentum in 2025.
The U.S. Senate recently advanced the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act) with a 66–32 procedural vote, marking a pivotal moment in establishing a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoin oversight.
This bipartisan-supported bill aims to define "payment stablecoins," specify who can issue them—such as bank subsidiaries, credit unions, and approved non-bank entities—and set clear operational guidelines for issuers.
Alongside the GENIUS Act, Representative Tom Emmer reintroduced the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, also enjoying bipartisan backing, which seeks to clarify regulatory certainty for blockchain technologies and digital assets. Emmer has further pushed for clearer definitions on how cryptocurrencies fit within securities law through the Securities Clarity Act, emphasizing the need for legal expectation to foster business growth in the crypto sector.
The GENIUS Act includes key provisions such as enhancing anti-illicit finance measures, and restricting stablecoin sales in the U.S. by non-U.S. entities etc. It also allows issuance under state regulatory regimes that meet or exceed federal standards, with oversight coordinated by a panel comprising the Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve Chair, and FDIC Chair. These measures aim to address concerns related to decentralized finance (DeFi) and bolster consumer protections.
This legislative activity reflects a broader push within Congress to unify and clarify crypto regulations, moving away from a fragmented patchwork toward a coherent national framework. The House of Representatives has introduced complementary stablecoin legislation—the STABLE Act (Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy)—to align regulatory efforts between both chambers. This bill focuses on transparency and accountability for stablecoin issuers and aims to protect consumers and the financial system.
Moreover, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is engaging more actively with the crypto community by scheduling additional public roundtables to gather industry input, indicating a shift toward more collaborative regulatory approaches. This evolving regulatory landscape is ready to provide clearer guidelines and greater legal certainty for crypto businesses and users, supporting innovation while addressing risks.
Washington's recent legislative advancements on stablecoins and blockchain signal a decisive move toward structured, bipartisan crypto regulation, aiming to foster innovation, enhance oversight, and protect consumers within the rapidly growing digital asset ecosystem.
It's me, @justmythoughts, an ordinary Hive user looking to make the most of the platform. I will appreciate your support. Follow me for more. Thanks, Gracias :)
I wonder how much money will pile into 'Stable-coins' to then buy BTC at the next dip, or how much will be used for retail transactions. Backing their stable coins with real assets is smart, I realized as much in 2017 when pairing BTC with Altcoins became obvious to me. Then DE-FI showed up and began the memecoin era of liquidity pool pump and dumps. Yet BTC continues to rise above all, but stable-payments is probably a good thing to enable practical use cases, right? We are all cool with the tokenization of all value, and will need multiple trustless ledgers to aggregate all the value from the world. Here on Hive we are doing that, using our proof of brain and acquired vesting shares which represent owned value of the entire Hive network. We can turn it into BTC, or power up more HP increasing our upvotes, which is another way to tokenize 'intellectual' value and put it on the blockchain. And we aren't BTC, but I still think Hive has value, so why not these stablecoins? As skeptical as we all are of new ideas, we could consider the possibility that the 'skeptics' of ancient days were perhaps in error to be so overcautious. Often not taking a big enough risk is even riskier.