Michael Saylor, executive chairman and co-founder of Strategy, has come out swinging against a new proposal to clean up Bitcoin’s ‘spam,’ arguing that it could fundamentally alter how the world’s largest blockchain operates.

The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, aimed at temporarily restricting arbitrary data to focus on the core monetary functions, is a threat to the main principles of the network, Saylor explained in a comprehensive critique published on X, titled “110 reasons BIP-110 is a bad idea.”

“The proposed cure is more dangerous than the condition,” Saylor said in the recent detailed analysis. “BIP 110 would use consensus to narrow valid activity, constrain future options, complicate deployment, and establish a precedent it cannot later erase.”

Saylor’s primary objection is based on the “no-questions-asked” nature of money. “Bitcoin cannot read intent,” Saylor writes. “The network cannot know whether bytes represent an image, a proof, a contract, metadata, an authentication record, or a future application,” argued.

By banning “spam,” the protocol would effectively elevate human judgment into protocol law, effectively turning Bitcoin’s conservatism upside down.

‘Too aggressive’

Saylor is the latest bitcoin executive to weigh in on this highly debated topic among the Bitcoin community.

The Electronic Transactions Association (ETA) is signaling a more constructive stance toward Bitcoin, with CEO Jason Oxman saying the group does not oppose the network and is open to partnerships—especially when customer demand and merchant needs point that way. Speaking in an interview with CoinDesk, Oxman framed the ETA’s position as technology-neutral, while pointing to recent activity with BitPay as evidence that Bitcoin-related innovation is on the table.

The shift is also reflected in the ETA’s membership changes: on August 6, the trade group announced BitPay—an Atlanta-based Bitcoin payments provider—as the first virtual currency company to join the ETA. The association represents major players in electronic payments, including Visa, MasterCard, Amazon, and PayPal, and said the addition underscores its intent to engage with emerging technologies as the payments industry evolves.

Key takeaways

• ETA CEO Jason Oxman said the organization does not advocate for Bitcoin and has not taken a position against other technologies; it treats electronic transactions as the common denominator.
• BitPay joining the ETA on August 6 marks the first virtual currency company membership, suggesting traditional payments groups may be willing to cooperate with Bitcoin processors.
• Oxman cited the Bitcoin Foundation’s role in educating ETA members—dating back to an ETA event in 2013—as part of why members began viewing Bitcoin as “an interesting development.”
• In discussing New York’s BitLicense proposal, Oxman argued regulators should avoid reflexive rules for “something new” and instead conduct deeper research into how Bitcoin systems and consumer protections work.

Why the ETA is talking more openly about Bitcoin

Oxman’s comments emphasize that the ETA’s mandate is broader than any single payment network. In the CoinDesk interview, he said the association’s stance is centered on facilitating electronic transactions, which means the transaction format ultimately follows what merchants and customers choose.

That framing matters because it positions Bitcoin less as an “alternative” and more as another option within the payments stack—one that may be integrated if it demonstrates value and operational safety. Oxman specifically pointed to the ETA’s partnership with BitPay as a concrete example of how the group approaches innovation without automatically dismissing new models.

By describing the ETA as “open to work with emerging tech startups, including Bitcoin-related companies,” Oxman also made demand the deciding factor. In other words, the ETA’s engagement appears less like advocacy for a particular technology and more like an attempt to stay relevant as customers and merchants experiment with Bitcoin payments.

BitPay membership and what it signals to traditional payments

The ETA press release introducing BitPay as a member described the decision as part of the group’s commitment to embrace new technology. BitPay’s entrance into an association that includes payment giants is significant, even if it does not automatically translate into endorsement of Bitcoin across the entire membership.

Oxman suggested the ETA’s outlook has changed as members gain more practical context. He referred to an earlier event in 2013 where Bitcoin Foundation general counsel Patrick Murck discussed Bitcoin in business-focused terms. Oxman said Murck’s presentation helped ETA members see Bitcoin as a relevant development for the industry, adding that at least one ETA member proceeded to strike a deal with a Bitcoin processor.

That historical detail points to a wider dynamic: partnerships in payments often come after repeated exposure to regulatory and operational questions. The ETA’s decision to bring BitPay in—and Oxman’s explanation of why—implies that Bitcoin’s perceived legitimacy is improving among mainstream payment stakeholders, at least in the context of how Bitcoin processing can fit into established transaction workflows.

The BitLicense debate: consumer protection vs. innovation

Oxman also addressed New York’s BitLicense proposal and the regulatory scrutiny surrounding it. He acknowledged that regulators’ concerns are understandable, particularly around consumer protection in novel payment systems. In his view, when alternative payment options are not well established and widely deployed, regulators feel more compelled to step in to protect consumers where those protections are not already present.

That stance reflects a tension at the heart of Bitcoin policy discussions: overly strict rules can raise compliance barriers and slow experimentation, while weak oversight can leave users exposed. Oxman argued that the ETA had previously worked through regulatory uncertainty when new payment methods—such as PayPal—arrived, spending significant time ensuring government action did not constrain innovation.

But he said New York should not treat Bitcoin as a special case that must be regulated using reflexive logic. Instead, he urged the NY Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) to conduct a more in-depth examination of Bitcoin’s technical operation and the additional measures that Bitcoin providers—including Bitcoin processors—take to protect both consumers and merchants.

Importantly, Oxman’s position is not a call to ignore regulation; it is a call for regulation built around how Bitcoin works in practice, rather than rules applied because the technology is new.

Regulatory timeline shifts in New York

Meanwhile, New York’s BitLicense review process is still moving. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, the NYDFS superintendent Benjamin Lawsky extended the public comment period on the BitLicense proposal by 45 days, pushing the deadline to October 21. The extension followed a joint letter in which BTC China, Huobi, and OkCoin—referred to by Cointelegraph as the “Big three”—outlined concerns and requested changes to the proposal.

For investors and market participants, these procedural updates can be as important as the policy itself. Longer comment windows often indicate that regulators are weighing industry feedback more deliberately—potentially affecting how strict compliance obligations are ultimately framed. It also means companies preparing for the BitLicense regime may face shifting expectations as regulators refine their approach.

As the ETA continues building relationships with Bitcoin-focused firms like BitPay and New York’s BitLicense review proceeds through an extended comment period, the key question for the market is how regulators will translate concerns about consumer protection into rules that reflect Bitcoin’s actual system design—and whether mainstream payment stakeholders continue to increase engagement as compliance certainty improves.

Japanese logistics group AZ-COM Maruwa Holdings plans to introduce the yen-backed JPYC stablecoin for payments to about 2,300 partner carriers and independent drivers, according to a Nikkei report cited by Crypto Briefing.

The move is “expected to become Japan’s first large-scale corporate use of JPYC.”The company also plans to invest ¥1 billion in JPYC and form a business partnership with the stablecoin issuer. The rollout would move JPYC beyond retail tests and crypto services into routine business payments across a large logistics network.

AZ-COM Maruwa brings JPYC into logistics payments

AZ-COM Maruwa Holdings operates third-party logistics, transportation, warehousing and delivery services in Japan. Its planned use of JPYC would cover outsourcing and other payments made to a broad network of transport partners, including individual truck drivers.

The reported ¥1 billion investment also ties the logistics group directly to JPYC’s growth. The companies have not yet disclosed a detailed rollout schedule or explained how each partner will receive, hold or convert the tokens. Those operating details will determine how widely drivers and carriers use JPYC instead of immediately redeeming it for yen.

JPYC began issuing its regulated yen-backed stablecoin on October 27, 2025. The token maintains a one-to-one link with the yen and uses bank deposits and Japanese government bonds as reserve assets. It operates on public blockchain networks and can be issued or redeemed through JPYC EX.

The AZ-COM Maruwa plan follows other attempts to move JPYC into daily payments. As reported by crypto.news, Lawson plans to test JPYC payments at a Tokyo convenience store in August through a point-of-sale system. The trial will let customers pay using a smartphone-linked payment system.

Japan’s stablecoin market adds more use cases

JPYC is also expanding into financial products. As reported by crypto.news, Metaplanet and JPYC recently began studying Bitcoin-backed credit products that could use JPYC for lending and settlement. The project is examining how Bitcoin collateral and yen-denominated stablecoin liquidity could work together. Payment infrastructure is developing at the same time.As reported by crypto.news, LINE NEXT plans to support JPYC through Unifi Pay, a stablecoin payment service scheduled for a wider launch in the third quarter. The service is designed to let users in Japan top up local stablecoins from bank accounts after identity checks.

The logistics rollout would differ from smaller consumer pilots because it involves thousands of businesses and independent drivers receiving payments through the same stablecoin system. If implemented at the reported scale, it would test JPYC’s ability to handle regular corporate settlement rather than isolated retail purchases.

Japan is also tightening rules around stablecoin reserves as adoption grows.Japanese regulators have set conditions for government bonds held as reserve assets. JPYC has said it plans to keep most reserve proceeds in Japanese government bonds and the remainder in bank deposits.

AZ-COM Maruwa’s planned rollout therefore arrives as JPYC moves into retail payments, lending experiments and broader payment infrastructure. The ¥1 billion investment adds a direct corporate commitment, while the proposed payments to 2,300 logistics partners would provide one of the clearest tests yet of whether a regulated yen stablecoin can work in everyday business settlement.

This year, Tether rolled out USAT — launched with U.S. standards in mind and issued through U.S. banking partner Anchorage Digital. So far, it remains at a relatively low level of usage.

“Non-compliant stablecoins cannot be used by U.S. institutions when the safe harbor expires in 2028, but we don’t expect the market to wait,” said Kevin Wysocki, head of policy at Anchorage Digital, the crypto-native bank that manages a number of stablecoins. He said the company believes institutional users will move toward “compliant, bank-issued digital dollars well ahead of that deadline.”

Do they have two years?

GENIUS included a three-year grace period for compliance, and two years remain, after which U.S. crypto platforms won’t be able to offer stablecoins whose issuers haven’t checked all the regulatory boxes. However, there seems to be some disagreement over whether foreign issuers are meant to enjoy that same safe harbor. Some lawyers in finance assume that Tether gets until July 18, 2028, to comply, but others have suggested that foreign issuers would have to comply the moment GENIUS officially goes live, which is likely six months from now in January.

“Upon the effectiveness of the GENIUS Act, foreign issuers will need to immediately comply with lawful orders to seize and freeze coins held by illicit actors, but they will have a runway of approximately two more years to prepare for the additional requirements so that their coins may remain eligible for listing on U.S. centralized trading platforms,” said Justin Levine, a lawyer at Davis Polk who advises clients on stablecoin issues, adding that one of those remaining requirements — registration with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — is likely to require a “significant undertaking”

U.S. stablecoin regulators missed a key rulemaking deadline tied to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, despite issuing multiple proposals and gathering public input over the past year. The deadline passed on Saturday, marking one year since the law was signed—yet no final regulations had been published by the end of that window.

The GENIUS Act, signed by President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025, created the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for stablecoins. While several agencies advanced the process through notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs), rulemaking trackers maintained by Chapman and crypto investment firm Paradigm show that final rules were not issued before the statutory deadline.

Key takeaways

• Despite a full year of rule development, U.S. agencies had not released final GENIUS Act regulations by the deadline, according to Chapman and Paradigm trackers.
• GENIUS remains valid law, but the lack of final rules increases compliance uncertainty for stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions.
• Federal agencies—including the Treasury Department and banking regulators—published multiple NPRMs covering registration, supervision, reserve expectations, and AML-related implementation.
• Anchorage Digital used the one-year GENIUS milestone to renew a push for broader digital-asset market structure legislation through the CLARITY Act.

What the deadline miss means for stablecoin compliance

Missing the statutory deadline does not automatically invalidate the GENIUS Act itself. However, it can materially affect how quickly regulated entities can operationalize the framework. Stablecoin issuers, payment-focused platforms, and institutions planning to participate in issuance or custody have generally relied on final rules to guide compliance programs, governance processes, and supervisory expectations.

According to rulemaking trackers by law firm Chapman and Paradigm, multiple agencies published proposals during the past year but did not conclude the rulemaking process in time. The agencies named in the trackers include the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve Board, all of which issued NPRMs without publishing final versions before the deadline.

That gap is likely to be most consequential for issuers seeking clarity on how regulators intend to evaluate reserve management, supervisory standards, and compliance obligations—areas where the GENIUS framework is intended to bring consistency across federal oversight.

GENIUS’s first year: agencies issued 10 proposed rulemakings

Paradigm’s tracking data indicates that federal regulators issued 10 NPRMs during the GENIUS Act’s first year. The proposals spanned the act’s broader implementation and the mechanics of how different types of regulated entities would participate.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury released four proposals focused on implementation and eligibility questions, including how regulators should determine when state stablecoin regimes are “similar” to the federal framework, registration requirements for foreign stablecoin issuers, and guidance tied to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance.

Meanwhile, the OCC issued two NPRMs addressing nationally chartered payment stablecoin issuers, including approval requirements and supervisory standards intended for those entities.

The FDIC published one NPRM for FDIC-supervised institutions that issue payment stablecoins, centering on supervisory expectations and operational requirements such as reserve management.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) also moved forward with proposed rules designed to enable federally insured credit unions to participate in stablecoin issuance.

Finally, federal banking agencies jointly proposed an interagency implementation rule meant to harmonize supervision across the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC—an attempt to reduce inconsistencies in oversight that can arise when multiple regulators examine similar activities under different supervisory practices.

In practical terms, the breadth of proposals shows regulators were actively working through the architecture of GENIUS. Still, the failure to finalize the rules by the deadline leaves open questions about how the draft proposals will be resolved and what changes—if any—will be made after public comment periods close.

Anchorage renews its CLARITY push as GENIUS rules remain unfinished

As regulators continued to work through proposed GENIUS rules, Anchorage Digital—a federally chartered crypto bank—used the GENIUS one-year anniversary to call again for Congress to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY). In a report published on Friday, Anchorage said it was “renewing” its request for lawmakers to extend stablecoin market-structure rules into the broader digital asset economy.

CLARITY is intended to establish the first federal regulatory framework for digital assets more broadly. Anchorage’s messaging also aligns with ongoing industry debate about how far existing banking rules should extend to stablecoins, particularly regarding whether yield offerings could be structured without triggering deposit-substitute concerns.

Earlier coverage noted that CLARITY advanced through the Senate Banking Committee in May. Industry groups, including state banking associations, have argued that the bill could enable crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without meeting requirements they say traditional banks must follow.

On July 13, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), among other state banking associations, sent a joint letter urging Senate leaders to provide more detail on CLARITY’s stablecoin yield provisions. The letter also argued that amendments are needed to ensure payment stablecoins remain transaction tools rather than operating like deposit substitutes.

Legislative uncertainty has also been visible in market participants’ expectations. On June 26, Galaxy Digital reportedly cut its odds of CLARITY becoming law in 2026 to 50%, citing the lack of a unified Senate Banking–Agriculture text, no firm floor schedule, and a narrowing legislative window as lawmakers near departure periods.

Taken together, the regulatory timeline under GENIUS and the parallel legislative push for CLARITY point to a broader policy reality for the sector: stablecoins are increasingly regulated through federal rulemaking, but questions about market structure and adjacent digital asset rules remain bound to Congress rather than agencies alone.

What to watch next as proposed rules move toward finality

With the GENIUS rulemaking deadline passed and final regulations still pending, stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions should watch for the agencies named in the rulemaking trackers to publish final rules—or revised drafts—after comment periods. Investors and operators may also want to monitor whether the interagency harmonization proposal results in more consistent supervisory expectations across regulators, and whether congressional momentum on CLARITY meaningfully changes the policy direction around stablecoin yields and broader digital asset market structure.