Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Treasury Launches GENIUS Act Stablecoin Rulemaking

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Key Insights

  • GENIUS Act defines state-regulated stablecoin compliance, allowing smaller issuers to operate locally while meeting federal oversight standards.
  • OCC guidance establishes federal benchmarks, guiding stablecoin issuers transitioning from state to federal supervision after $10 billion circulation.
  • Monthly reserve disclosures and uniform branding rules ensure consistent transparency and regulatory alignment across state and federal stablecoin frameworks.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has released an 87-page proposal implementing the GENIUS Act. The notice opens a 60-day public comment period and outlines how stablecoin oversight will function across both state and federal systems.

The proposal details how the Treasury will determine whether state-level regulatory frameworks are “substantially similar” to federal standards. Smaller issuers can remain under state supervision if their systems meet the defined benchmarks.

State Stablecoin Oversight Must Meet Federal Standards

Issuers with less than ten billion dollars in circulation may opt for state-level regulation, provided their frameworks align with federal rules. The proposal separates requirements into two categories: uniform rules covering reserves and anti-money laundering and state-calibrated rules where local regulators control supervision, licensing, and risk management.

This approach allows states to maintain flexibility while ensuring all systems comply with the federal baseline, preventing gaps in regulation.

OCC Guidance Shapes Federal Stablecoin Compliance

The Treasury relies on the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to define the federal benchmark. Nonbank issuers that exceed the $10 billion threshold will transition toward federal supervision guided by OCC standards.

Advertisement

The rule also clarifies that state frameworks may exceed federal requirements, but they cannot conflict with federal law or reduce regulatory comparability.

Stablecoin Disclosure and Branding Rules Enforced

Issuers must publish monthly reserve composition reports to maintain transparency across state and federal systems. This ensures that disclosure practices remain consistent for all regulated stablecoins.

In addition, naming restrictions apply uniformly to prevent misleading branding. These rules align compliance across jurisdictions and maintain public confidence in dollar-backed stablecoins.

GENIUS Act Implementation Drives Regulatory Alignment

The rulemaking represents a key step in turning the GENIUS Act into an operational framework. Passed in July 2025, the law introduced mandatory reserve backing, regular disclosures, and anti-money laundering compliance for payment stablecoins.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Congress continues advancing complementary measures, including the Clarity Act, to define SEC and CFTC oversight, although disputes over stablecoin yield have slowed broader market reforms.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

BTC climbs off of worst levels on Strait of Hormuz hopes

Published

on

'Murban crude oil' surges past $100, posing risk to bitcoin and risk assets

The Nasdaq mostly erased an early 2% loss Thursday after reports that Iran is drafting a protocol with Oman to manage traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, easing concerns about disruptions to a key global oil route.

WTI crude oil — which had surged to nearly $115 per barrel as President Trump vowed to continue the war against Iran — fell about $5 on the news.

Crypto prices trimmed losses alongside, but remained sharply lower over the past 24 hours. Bitcoin at $66,700 is down by 3%, and ether (ETH) at $2,060 is down by the same amount.

Iranian officials framed the move as a matter of coordination rather than control. The country’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, said that even under normal conditions, ship traffic through the strait should be monitored and coordinated with coastal states like Iran and Oman to ensure safety. He added that the proposed measures are not intended to restrict passage, but to “facilitate and ensure safe passage” and improve services for vessels moving through the route.

Advertisement

The remarks come after U.S. President Trump on Wednesday night vowed to hit Iran “extremely hard” in the coming weeks and that the Strait of Hormuz would “open naturally” once the war ends.

Bitcoin fell after Trump’s remarks and continues to trade about 2% lower over the past 24 hours, in line with crypto stocks, including Coinbase (COIN) and Robinhood (HOOD).

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

DeFi Is Optimizing For gas, Not For Markets

Published

on

DeFi Is Optimizing For gas, Not For Markets

Opinion by: João Garcia, DevReal lead at Cartesi.

Decentralized finance presents itself as a transparent alternative to Wall Street. Yet, what it has largely reconstructed is a simplified version of finance, engineered less around market resilience than around the constraints of gas fees. That trade-off, once treated as a technical footnote, is increasingly shaping the limits of what DeFi can become.

So long as computational minimalism remains the overriding priority, financial robustness will remain secondary, and periods of market stress will continue to expose that imbalance.

When markets move faster than the virtual machine

DeFi has rebuilt the familiar architecture of finance, including exchanges, lending markets, derivatives and stablecoins. However, the way these systems function reveals how tightly they are bound by their execution environments.

Risk parameters tend to remain static, and although collateral thresholds can adjust, they typically do so slowly, through governance processes rather than automatic recalibration. Liquidation engines currently rely on fixed formulas rather than adaptive portfolio models that account for shifting volatility or correlations. What appears as a design preference is often a concession to computational limits.

Advertisement

On Ethereum and similar chains, floating-point arithmetic is absent or emulated, iterative simulations are expensive, and continuously recomputing cross-asset exposure can quickly become impractical. The outcome is that financial logic is compressed into forms that are deterministic and affordable to execute, even if that compression strips away nuance.

This architecture performs adequately in stable conditions, but volatility has a way of testing its edges. During MakerDAO’s “Black Thursday” event in March 2020, vaults were liquidated at effectively zero bids, as auction mechanics struggled under collapsing prices and network congestion. 

In later downturns, protocols such as Aave and Compound leaned on mass liquidations triggered by fixed collateral ratios, rather than dynamic portfolio recalculations. When Curve’s pools were destabilized in 2023 following a smart contract exploit, the stress radiated outward into lending protocols that treated LP tokens as static collateral, compounding systemic risk.

In each instance, decentralization itself was not the breaking point. Rather, rigid financial logic operated inside an execution layer that could not continuously recompute risk as conditions deteriorated.

Advertisement

Traditional markets evolved in the opposite direction. Banks and clearinghouses simulate thousands of stress scenarios, recalculating exposure as correlations shift and volatility regimes change. Margin requirements respond dynamically to market conditions, and the response is led by substantial computational infrastructure and mature numerical tooling. Public blockchains, by contrast, were not designed with that degree of iterative financial processing in mind.

The illusion of simplicity

Constraining computational complexity reduces certain attack surfaces. Simplicity at the protocol layer, however, does not dissolve complexity in the financial system. It merely pushes it elsewhere.

When risk cannot be modeled and recomputed transparently on-chain, it migrates off-chain into dashboards, analytics teams, discretionary parameter adjustments and emergency governance coordination. The blockchain may remain the settlement layer, but the adaptive intelligence that stabilizes the system increasingly operates outside it. During volatility spikes, protocols often depend on rapid human coordination to adjust parameters, while oracles and large token holders acquire disproportionate influence over outcomes.

The system retains its decentralized base, yet its capacity to respond flexibly depends on actors operating beyond deterministic execution. What appears structurally simple at the smart contract level can conceal a more complex and less transparent operational reality.

Advertisement

DeFi did not converge on simplified finance because static ratios and deterministic curves were proven superior. It converged there because richer computational models were prohibitively expensive to run. As markets deepen, leverage increases, and instruments grow more interdependent, that compromise becomes harder to ignore. Fixed thresholds and blunt liquidation engines, initially safeguards, can begin to function as amplifiers of stress.

Computation as a missing primitive

The deeper constraint, more than decentralization, is execution design.

If verifiable execution environments begin to approximate general-purpose computing systems, the financial design space expands. Native floating-point assistance, iterative algorithms and access to established numerical libraries would allow models to be expressed directly rather than translated into simplified approximations. 

Related: Wall Street will eventually submit to the rules of DeFi

Advertisement

This change would allow lending protocols to incorporate scenario-based stress testing instead of relying primarily on fixed collateral ratios. Margin requirements may also adjust in response to observed volatility rather than governance cadence. It could also see credit systems recompute multivariable risk scores transparently, replacing binary heuristics with more granular assessments.

The aim is not to introduce complexity for its own sake. It is to keep financial intelligence inside the protocol, where it remains visible and enforceable, rather than externalizing it into operational layers that users cannot easily audit. This underscores the broader point that the limitations confronting DeFi are largely architectural choices, not inevitabilities of decentralization.

A credibility ceiling

DeFi now stands at a structural crossroads. One direction preserves gas-optimized minimalism, keeping base-layer execution clean while allowing increasingly sophisticated financial logic to migrate off-chain. That path may maintain clarity at the smart contract level, but it constrains how far decentralized finance can responsibly scale.

The alternative is to treat computation itself as a first-class primitive and to accept more capable execution environments in exchange for systems that can adapt, recompute and stress-test transparently. If complex risk logic cannot live on-chain, DeFi will continue to project simplicity in code while relying on discretion in practice.

Advertisement

Markets will not moderate their complexity to accommodate virtual machine constraints. If decentralized finance intends to operate at a meaningful scale, its computational foundations will have to evolve alongside the financial ambitions built on top of them.

Opinion by: João Garcia, DevReal lead at Cartesi.