华盛顿围绕金融服务法规的狂热有所解决。

华盛顿围绕金融服务法规的狂热有所解决。实际上，重点现在转向了国家首都的绝对传统功能

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.

华盛顿特区的狂热围绕金融服务法规似乎有所解决。实际上，现在的重点已转向国家首都的绝对传统职能：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.

具体来说，众议院周二（3月11日）举行了听证会，参议院有望在星期四（3月13日）就执政的法律统治。

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.

请注意，我们说躁狂症已经定居。它还没有完全消失，该法案有一些问题，这些法案具有两党的支持。这些问题构成了前财政部助理秘书阿米亚斯·格里蒂（Amias Gerety）和PYMNTS首席执行官卡伦·韦伯斯特（Karen Webster）之间每周的大部分对话。

“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.

格里蒂说：“我们只需要确保正确地制定这项立法即可。” “所以要过去的事情。民主党人有一个许可结构为此投票，投票给某事。

“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.”

“而且我认为真正的问题是，[国会]是否会解决该法案中明显的问题？还是在没有太多修改的情况下航行？我不知道这将如何进行。但是我认为该法案的某种形式将通过。”

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.

众议院听证会和韦伯斯特对话的主题的法案被称为《天才法案》，这是指导和建立2025年《 2025年法案》的美国国家创新的首字母缩写。在听证会上作证的戴维斯·波尔克（Davis Polk）在内的几位法律专家都涉及其优点。

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

根据波尔克和其他几种解释，该法在美国引入了一个结构化的监管框架。

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.

根据波尔克的解释，该法案促进了与被保险银行相关的实体，要么独立运营以签发稳定的实体，该实体根据预定义的标准受到联邦或州的监督。这包括有关资本，流动性和风险管理标准的全面类似银行的法规。

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.

在该法案中妥协的重大尝试是可选的州级制度，这使较小的发行人可以选择遵守反映联邦标准的州特定法规。

Defining Issues

定义问题

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在该法案的“付款Stablecoin”定义上提出了潜在的问题，该定义可能不涵盖私人区块链上的Stablecoins，因为它主要集中在公共分类帐上的那些。这种歧义可能会导致监管灰色区域，特别是关于用于发行的分类帐类型。

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.”

美联储说：“ Stablecoins促进了加密交易所的交易，作为许多加密贷款的基础资产，并允许市场参与者避免因转换回FIAT货币进行加密货币交易而产生的低效率。它们本质上是这些交易的支付方式和价值存储的手段。顾名思义，Stablecoins试图通过将其价值固定在现实世界中的资产（称为参考资产）（例如美元）中，以提供相对于其他加密资产的稳定价值。”

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.”

当前的Stablecoin法案最重要的问题之一是它未能清楚地定义稳定的实际是什么。正如Gerety所指出的那样，“该法案对Stablecoin的问题完全保持沉默。它只是说什么不是。它说这不是安全。”

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.

这种歧义会引起混乱，尤其是在考虑可能既可能是证券和稳定的产品）时。缺乏明确的定义代表了格里蒂所谓的“法案中明显的问题，可能会被固定”，随着立法过程的发展。

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.

除了定义问题外，Gerety认为该法案未能解决关键的消费者保护问题，特别是关于如果Stablecoin发行人失败的情况，客户资金会发生什么。

“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.

格里蒂说：“当人们有钱时，他们想知道的是钱是他们的。”与传统的金融产品不同，在机构失败的情况下，存在单独的决议制度以保护消费基金，他认为目前的Stablecoin立法缺乏类似的保护。

“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.

“如果您有经纪人的钱，就有证券投资者保护公司。如果您在银行里有钱，那笔钱会带给您联邦政府的保证。” Gerety补充说，并指出，该法案的先前被认为是该法案的麦克亨利 - 捕捞版本解决了这一问题，但目前的立法并未提供相同的清晰度。

Divided Banking

分裂的银行业务

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.

银行业似乎在Stablecoin法规上分配。 Gerety指出，银行家对此事“没有和解”他们的观点，有些人看到机会，而另一些人则承认潜在的威胁。

“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.

“对于最大的银行来说，这可能相当不错。我认为最大的银行将成为稳定的发行人。”但是，他警告说，社区银行将努力与苹果或元等潜在的Stablecoin发行人竞争。

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

这给银行带来了紧张，“尚未明确表示赞成”立法。 “我认为没有两个银行家营地。我认为银行家