華盛頓圍繞金融服務法規的狂熱有所解決。

華盛頓圍繞金融服務法規的狂熱有所解決。實際上，重點現在轉向了國家首都的絕對傳統功能

The mania in Washington, D.C., around financial services regulation seems to have settled a bit. In fact, the focus has now turned toward a decidedly traditional function in the nation’s capital: legislating.

華盛頓特區的狂熱圍繞金融服務法規似乎有所解決。實際上，現在的重點已轉向國家首都的絕對傳統職能：立法。

Specifically, the House held a hearing Tuesday (March 11) and the Senate is poised to vote on Thursday (March 13) on legislation governing stablecoins.

具體來說，眾議院週二（3月11日）舉行了聽證會，參議院有望在星期四（3月13日）就執政的法律統治。

Note that we said that the mania had settled. It hasn’t gone away entirely, and there are some issues with the bill, which has bipartisan support. Those issues made up the bulk of the weekly conversation between former assistant secretary of the treasury Amias Gerety and PYMNTS CEO Karen Webster.

請注意，我們說躁狂症已經定居。它還沒有完全消失，該法案有一些問題，這些法案具有兩黨的支持。這些問題構成了前財政部助理秘書阿米亞斯·格里蒂（Amias Gerety）和PYMNTS首席執行官卡倫·韋伯斯特（Karen Webster）之間每週的大部分對話。

“We just need to make sure that we do this legislation right,” Gerety said. “So something is going to pass. There’s a permission structure for Democrats to vote for this, to vote for something.

格里蒂說：“我們只需要確保正確地制定這項立法即可。” “所以要過去的事情。民主黨人有一個許可結構為此投票，投票給某事。

“And I think the real question is, will [Congress] fix some of the obvious problems in the bill? Or is it going to sail through without much modification? I don’t know how that’s going to go. But I think some form of the bill will pass.”

“而且我認為真正的問題是，[國會]是否會解決該法案中明顯的問題？還是在沒有太多修改的情況下航行？我不知道這將如何進行。但是我認為該法案的某種形式將通過。”

The bill that was the subject of the House hearing as well as the Webster-Gerety conversation is known as the GENIUS Act, an acronym for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025 Act. Several legal experts have chimed in on its merits, including Davis Polk, who testified at the hearing.

眾議院聽證會和韋伯斯特對話的主題的法案被稱為《天才法案》，這是指導和建立2025年《 2025年法案》的美國國家創新的首字母縮寫。在聽證會上作證的戴維斯·波爾克（Davis Polk）在內的幾位法律專家都涉及其優點。

According to Polk and several other interpretations, the act introduces a structured regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

根據波爾克和其他幾種解釋，該法在美國引入了一個結構化的監管框架。

According to Polk’s interpretation, the act facilitates entities either associated with insured banks or operating independently to issue stablecoins, subjected to either federal or state oversight based on predefined criteria. This includes comprehensive bank-like regulations concerning capital, liquidity and risk management standards.

根據波爾克的解釋，該法案促進了與被保險銀行相關的實體，要么獨立運營以簽發穩定的實體，該實體根據預定義的標準受到聯邦或州的監督。這包括有關資本，流動性和風險管理標準的全麵類似銀行的法規。

A significant attempt at compromise in the act is the optional state-level regime, providing smaller issuers a choice to adhere to state-specific regulations that mirror federal standards.

在該法案中妥協的重大嘗試是可選的州級制度，這使較小的發行人可以選擇遵守反映聯邦標準的州特定法規。

Defining Issues

定義問題

However, Polk as well as Gerety and Webster picked up on a potential issue with the act’s definition of “payment stablecoin,” which might not cover stablecoins on private blockchains, as it primarily focuses on those issued on public ledgers. This ambiguity could lead to regulatory gray areas, particularly concerning the ledger type used for stablecoin issuance.

但是，Polk以及Gerety和Webster在該法案的“付款Stablecoin”定義上提出了潛在的問題，該定義可能不涵蓋私人區塊鏈上的Stablecoins，因為它主要集中在公共分類帳上的那些。這種歧義可能會導致監管灰色區域，特別是關於用於發行的分類帳類型。

The Federal Reserve says, “Stablecoins facilitate trades on crypto exchanges, serve as the underlying asset for many crypto loans, and allow market participants to avoid inefficiencies stemming from converting back to fiat currency for crypto trades. They essentially serve as both a means of payment and store of value for these transactions. As the name suggests, stablecoins attempt to provide a stable value relative to other crypto assets by pegging their value to a real-world asset, known as the reference asset, such as the U.S. dollar.”

美聯儲說：“ Stablecoins促進了加密交易所的交易，作為許多加密貸款的基礎資產，並允許市場參與者避免因轉換回法定貨幣進行加密貨幣交易而產生的低效率。它們本質上是這些交易的支付方式和價值存儲的手段。顧名思義，Stablecoins試圖通過將其價值固定在現實世界中的資產（稱為參考資產）（例如美元）中，以提供相對於其他加密資產的穩定價值。”

One of the most significant issues with the current stablecoin bill is its failure to clearly define what a stablecoin actually is. As Gerety pointed out, “The bill is totally silent on the question of what a stablecoin is. It only says what it isn’t. It says that it’s not a security.”

當前的Stablecoin法案最重要的問題之一是它未能清楚地定義穩定的實際是什麼。正如Gerety所指出的那樣，“該法案對Stablecoin的問題完全保持沉默。它只是說什麼不是。它說這不是安全。”

This ambiguity creates confusion, especially when considering products that could potentially be both securities and stablecoins. The lack of clear definition represents what Gerety called “an obvious problem in the bill that might get fixed” as it progresses through the legislative process.

這種歧義會引起混亂，尤其是在考慮可能既可能是證券和穩定的產品）時。缺乏明確的定義代表了格里蒂所謂的“法案中明顯的問題，可能會被固定”，隨著立法過程的發展。

Beyond definitional issues, Gerety believes the bill fails to address critical consumer protection concerns, particularly regarding what happens to customer funds if a stablecoin issuer fails.

除了定義問題外，Gerety認為該法案未能解決關鍵的消費者保護問題，特別是關於如果Stablecoin發行人失敗的情況，客戶資金會發生什麼。

“When people have money, what they want to know is that money is theirs,” Gerety said. Unlike traditional financial products where separate resolution regimes exist to protect consumer funds in case of institutional failure, he believes the current stablecoin legislation lacks similar protections.

格里蒂說：“當人們有錢時，他們想知道的是錢是他們的。”與傳統的金融產品不同，在機構失敗的情況下，存在單獨的決議制度以保護消費基金，他認為目前的Stablecoin立法缺乏類似的保護。

“If you have money at a broker, you have the Securities Investor Protection Corp. regimes. If you have money in a bank, that money comes back to you with a guarantee from the federal government,” Gerety added, noting that the previously considered McHenry-Waters version of the bill addressed this issue, but the current legislation does not provide the same clarity.

“如果您有經紀人的錢，就有證券投資者保護公司。如果您在銀行里有錢，那筆錢會帶給您聯邦政府的保證。” Gerety補充說，並指出，該法案的先前被認為是該法案的麥克亨利 - 捕撈版本解決了這一問題，但目前的立法並未提供相同的清晰度。

Divided Banking

分裂的銀行業務

The banking sector appears divided on stablecoin regulation. Gerety noted that bankers “haven’t reconciled” their views on the matter, with some seeing opportunity and others recognizing potential threats.

銀行業似乎在Stablecoin法規上分配。 Gerety指出，銀行家對此事“沒有和解”他們的觀點，有些人看到機會，而另一些人則承認潛在的威脅。

“For the largest banks this is probably quite good. I think the largest banks will succeed as stablecoin issuers.” However, he cautioned that community banks would struggle to compete with potential stablecoin issuers like Apple or Meta.

“對於最大的銀行來說，這可能相當不錯。我認為最大的銀行將成為穩定的發行人。”但是，他警告說，社區銀行將努力與蘋果或元等潛在的Stablecoin發行人競爭。

This creates a tension for banks that “have not come out clearly in favor” of the legislation. “I don’t think there’s two camps of bankers. I think that the bankers

這給銀行帶來了緊張，“尚未明確表示贊成”立法。 “我認為沒有兩個銀行家營地。我認為銀行家