Interview with Circle's Chief Strategy Officer: After the implementation of the GENIUS Act, competition between banks and non-bank institutions has only just begun
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Circle's Chief Strategy Officer: After the implementation of the GENIUS Act, competition between banks and non-bank institutions has only just begun
The GENIUS Act establishes clear rules for the market, and ultimately, the biggest winners are American consumers and market participants.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated: TechFlow
Guest: Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy & Operations at Circle
Host: Laura Shin
Podcast Source: Unchained
Original Title: With the GENIUS Act Passed, Can Crypto Compete With Banks?
Release Date: July 19, 2025
Key Takeaways
After years of hostility, the United States has finally passed its first federal law regarding the crypto industry.
The bipartisan stablecoin legislation, the GENIUS Act, was signed into law by President Trump following a last-minute standoff in Congress. Although considered a "done deal," the bill's passage became turbulent this week, with Democrats objecting due to Trump’s ties to crypto, and the Freedom Caucus suddenly rebelling over provisions opposing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).
Now that the bill has passed, what impact will it actually have? Who will benefit or suffer?
In this episode, Dante Disparte, Circle’s Chief Strategy Officer and one of the key figures behind this legislation, explains:
-
How the bill secured bipartisan support amid political tensions
-
Why banks may think twice before issuing stablecoins
-
Why Circle is applying for a national trust bank charter
Additionally, the discussion covers the debate around yield-bearing stablecoins, how this bill fits into the broader financial regulatory framework, and whether U.S. consumers and the dollar will benefit as a result.
Notable Insights Summary
-
The use of money should be as free as possible.
-
The key point is that the crypto industry has finally achieved the long-sought legitimacy, clear legal and regulatory pathways under U.S. law, and the opportunity to compete.
-
The significance of the GENIUS Act goes far beyond cryptocurrency itself. It may be the first financial regulation in U.S. history designed to promote growth, competition, and consumer protection, with the core aim of establishing clear market rules and a rule-based competitive environment.
-
The GENIUS Act establishes clear rules for the market, making American consumers and market participants the ultimate winners, while further solidifying the global position of the U.S. dollar.
-
The most important aspect of the GENIUS Act is the concept of international reciprocity, which empowers the U.S. Treasury Department to promote the U.S. regulatory framework globally. This is crucial because it ensures the U.S. leads in shaping international rules rather than passively accepting those from other countries. This applies not only to cryptocurrencies but also to the global use of stablecoins.
-
In my career, I've often represented U.S. interests in international institutions and government banking meetings, even as a private-sector representative. But now, for the first time, the United States has an official voice in shaping these rules.
-
There remains a massive gap in global financial access, and both the U.S. and other nations urgently need alternatives to existing payment systems. In the future, many companies may compete around data, treating it as an asset. In an era where data is called the "new oil," can blockchain become the "new tool" to carry this data? That’s a question worth pondering.
-
The fully reserved stablecoin model addresses a core early problem in crypto—the regret consumers felt due to price volatility. This asset is not only a pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also a critical medium of exchange for the internet economy.
-
The GENIUS Act, along with upcoming U.S. market structure regulations, will shift crypto and blockchain technology from obvious applications toward deeper infrastructure, with their impacts gradually emerging.
-
I hope that within five years, we not only solidify the U.S. dollar’s role as the core currency of the internet economy and leverage it as a strategic advantage in global competition, but also enable more people to access secure, reliable, smartphone-based financial services.
"Crypto Week" Was Better Than Anyone Expected
Laura:
This is a very significant moment for the crypto industry. This week marks the end of what Congress calls "Crypto Week." The GENIUS Act—the first major U.S. crypto legislation—is about to be signed into law by President Trump. This bill is the result of years of effort by multiple lawmakers aiming to regulate stablecoin development. Before we started recording, you mentioned you’ve been fighting for this for seven years. While many thought this bill would pass smoothly after this administration took office, the actual process turned out far more uncertain.
So what created this suspense, and how did it ultimately pass?
Dante:
Yes, it wouldn’t feel like "Crypto Week" without some political maneuvering and drama. One of the biggest surprises this week was the opposition to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which caught many off guard.
But the key lies in the outcome—and the results exceeded everyone’s expectations. First, the GENIUS Act passed with over 300 votes, including 102 Democrats voting alongside Republicans. In today’s highly polarized U.S. political climate, this bipartisan support represents a significant achievement, reflecting shared national interest and the importance of the dollar in the global economy. It’s undoubtedly a major victory.
Besides, two other developments were notable. The Clarity Act—a House response to crypto market structure legislation—also gained broad bipartisan backing and is expected to see deep discussion in the Senate. Another provision opposing CBDCs further signals that the U.S. will actively engage in global digital currency competition through regulated dollar-backed stablecoins.
How the GENIUS Act Won Bipartisan Support Amid Major Political Friction
Laura:
As you mentioned, the bill ultimately received broad support. However, during its advancement, we saw strong Democratic resistance to Trump’s administration’s business activities related to crypto, particularly World Liberty Financial’s launch of its own stablecoin.
I’m curious—how were Democrats persuaded to support the bill in larger numbers? After all, this seemed unlikely earlier on.
Dante:
First, frankly, crypto legislation has become a bipartisan issue in the U.S. I sometimes joke that I’ve helped unite Washington twice in my career. The first time was during the Libra project, when Republicans and Democrats united in opposition, triggering numerous hearings and controversies. Ironically, that opposition led to unexpected bipartisan alignment.
Today, this bill went through extensive hearings, inter-agency meetings, and public consultations. The Biden administration issued executive orders on digital assets, while the Trump administration adopted a sincere, growth-oriented whole-of-government approach to advance these technologies, especially in AI-related fields. Yet, without properly addressing key interests—including potential political divisions—it would have been difficult for the GENIUS Act to gain 18 Democratic senators’ support in the Senate, let alone achieve such remarkable success in the House. So yes, this is a significant win.
For us, the key is the crypto industry has finally achieved the long-desired legitimacy, clear legal and regulatory pathways under U.S. law, and the opportunity to compete.
Why Dante Believes the Bill’s Significance Goes Beyond Crypto Itself
Laura:
Currently, Circle is widely seen as one of the biggest winners of this bill. What specific types of companies does the bill regulate? Which entities are included, and which are excluded? Clearly, some companies can now legally operate in the stablecoin space in the U.S., while others must meet higher standards to enter. Can you briefly explain how the bill affects different participants and how it changes their operating models?
Dante:
First, I believe the significance of the GENIUS Act extends far beyond crypto itself. It may be the first financial regulation in U.S. history aimed at promoting growth, competition, and consumer protection, centered on establishing clear market rules and a rule-based competitive environment. I’m happy to share some unique aspects of this bill.
It preserves state-level authority over banking and payments, which had previously been a major obstacle in stablecoin legislation. The U.S. financial system features “fintech federalism,” where states independently regulate banks and payments. The GENIUS Act respects and maintains this tradition. Additionally, the bill allows banks, non-banks, and credit unions to issue U.S.-dollar-denominated payment stablecoins valued at $1 billion or more. These entities fall under federal oversight, primarily by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the framework also opens doors for international competition.
The bill includes subtle provisions, such as international product portability, ensuring products compliant with similar foreign regulations can freely move between the U.S. and abroad. Notably, there’s the so-called “Libra clause.” Under this, if a non-bank or commercial company wants to issue a stablecoin—or what might be classified as a Vanity Stablecoin—it must establish a standalone entity (like Circle, not a bank), address antitrust concerns, and obtain approval from a special Treasury committee. This creates important safeguards and raises entry barriers. For banks planning to issue stablecoins under the GENIUS Act, they must create separate entities isolated from core banking operations and manage issuance and redemption differently—not like traditional loan and credit creation. This regulatory approach is even more conservative than the so-called deposit token era.
This raises an important question: Will banks adopt conservative balance sheet management—no risk, no leverage, no lending—just to issue stablecoins? Or will they prefer to compete in this niche by offering core banking services? Overall, the bill sets clear market rules, and I believe the biggest winners are ultimately U.S. consumers and market participants, while further strengthening the dollar’s global economic standing.
How Circle Plans to Compete With Banking Giants
Laura:
Let’s talk more about big banks. This week, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank are pushing to launch stablecoins—or at least considering it. While this bill doesn’t fully cover their actions, they clearly operate in the same space as Circle. JPMorgan also plans to launch deposit tokens. Currently, Circle’s USDC is mainly used in trading and decentralized finance (DeFi) and, through its partnership with Coinbase, has become its largest commercial partner. Moreover, USDC will be used by millions of Shopify merchants on Coinbase’s Base network.
So right now, Circle is more of a crypto-native player, while these banks have much broader reach among non-crypto users—clearly a larger market. How does Circle plan to compete with these banking giants?
Dante:
That’s an interesting question. In discussions about digital currency competition among banks, non-banks, and even central banks, our operating model and long-term belief is that once clear road rules are established, tokenized money isn’t the breakthrough—the real technological leap in banking and payments lies in infrastructure.
Our long-term vision is to build an internet-based financial system that connects global funds and financial services via blockchain technology. As you know, USDC is a multi-chain innovation designed to enhance interoperability across blockchains. It aims to build trusted financial infrastructure that brings money and financial services to areas unreachable by traditional banking and payment systems.
This isn’t a strategy opposed to banks. In fact, our strategy heavily relies on collaboration with banks, leveraging the trust and security they’ve built in the real economy. The introduction of the GENIUS Act will spark competition on multiple levels, which is a positive force for the U.S. economy and the entire market category. At the same time, it’s the best path to ensure digital assets and cryptocurrencies achieve mass adoption, as full interoperability with traditional finance is essential.
Another key point: before the GENIUS Act, the U.S. lacked a clear regulatory framework for crypto and non-bank payment systems. Take Libra, for example—due to the absence of U.S. laws, it ended up establishing itself in Switzerland, where it could be regulated as financial infrastructure. The GENIUS Act provides a “America-first” institutional framework while avoiding the limitations of “America-alone.” This enables companies like Circle and other U.S. firms, including traditional banks, to compete globally without worrying their business models or internet-based digital dollars will be constrained by foreign regulations. This is especially important as stablecoin and CBDC competition becomes a focal point in global finance. Discussions over the past week show many countries and institutions are trying to reduce reliance on the dollar and seek alternative payment systems.
Laura:
Okay, I want to clarify one of your points. I originally thought this bill mainly targeted domestic U.S. business activities, but from your description, it seems it might also affect stablecoin usage in other countries?
Dante:
Exactly. This is actually a crucial provision in the GENIUS Act, originally proposed in the House. You may recall that stablecoin legislation had different versions in the House and Senate. The House version was called the “Stable Act,” while the Senate proposed the GENIUS Act.
Ultimately, the GENIUS Act incorporated many improved provisions from the House version, earning support from 102 Democratic representatives. The most important of these is the concept of international reciprocity, which grants the U.S. Treasury the power to promote the U.S. regulatory framework globally. This is crucial because it ensures the U.S. leads in setting international rules rather than passively accepting those from other nations. This applies not only to crypto but also to the global use of stablecoins. Personally, this is a major milestone. Throughout my career, I’ve often represented U.S. interests in international institutions and government banking meetings—even as a private-sector representative. But now, for the first time, the U.S. has an official voice in shaping these rules.
What Circle Aims to Achieve by Applying for a National Trust Bank Charter
Laura:
At the end of June this year, Circle filed an application to establish a national trust bank in the U.S. This would allow Circle to directly manage its reserves and provide crypto custody services to institutional clients. Please elaborate on Circle’s plans for this national trust bank.
Dante:
Yes, custody and safeguarding services are part of our plan. Also, with the implementation of the GENIUS Act, non-bank stablecoin issuers in the U.S. must obtain a charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and a trust license. So our move is clearly a strategic preparation for future regulatory requirements. This isn’t surprising, as it aligns with our approach under Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework.
Our business goal has always been excellence. When Europe spent years developing MiCA, we realized we needed a presence there. So we chose France, obtained an e-money license, and ensured Circle’s USDC and euro stablecoin became among the first MiCA-compliant products. Therefore, as U.S. regulations mature, adopting a similar model is logical.
Laura:
I’d like to ask another question about competing with big banks. Fortune recently reported that JPMorgan plans to charge fintech firms for using its data. Suppose a fintech company like Plaid, which connects Coinbase—your biggest partner—with customer banks. If the bank is JPMorgan, a formerly free data interface might start charging fees. Do you think this change could hinder Circle’s growth? And how would Circle respond if similar bank fee scenarios arise?
Dante:
This is indeed a complex issue, and the exact impact is hard to predict. However, one thing is clear: the legitimacy of money usage has long been controversial, and that’s partly why I entered this industry. I firmly believe the use of money should be as free as possible.
Also, traditional banking payment systems resemble the landline phone era—longer calls cost more. Thus, many companies in the future may compete around data, treating it as an asset. In an age where data is called the “new oil,” can blockchain become the “new tool” to carry this data? That’s a question worth deep reflection.
Why Financial Privacy Is So Important in the U.S. System
Dante:
Demand for financial privacy is deeply rooted in American society, and this is one of the main reasons behind opposition to central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). However, truly protecting financial privacy isn’t easy. Only by establishing clear rules and fair competition can complete financial services be safely and privately delivered to users. Crypto wallets play a key role here, providing secure tools for storing and managing cryptocurrencies while protecting personal privacy.
Currently, stablecoins are achieving this through the dollar, supported by mobile digital wallets, open-source wallets, and blockchain infrastructure, creating a competitive ecosystem that reaches every user. In a post-GENIUS Act world, consumers will have more choices—accessing financial services while protecting privacy. If large institutions try to compete by monetizing data, the GENIUS Act will offer consumers alternatives that don’t require sacrificing privacy.
How Deposit Tokens Differ From Stablecoins
Laura：
Recently, deposit tokens have started gaining attention, though I wasn’t familiar with the concept before. Each unit of a deposit token represents a portion of bank deposits. So how do their uses differ from stablecoins? Do deposit tokens have broad application potential? In what scenarios might they be used? Are they competitors to stablecoins, or just different in function? How should consumers view these two?
Dante：
This is indeed a complex issue. As a supporter of the movement against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), I’ve studied it deeply, drawing on academic papers to support my views. Deposit tokens and stablecoins do share some similarities. The GENIUS Act allows banks to issue payment stablecoins, but stipulates that only bank-issued payment stablecoins meeting specific criteria are legitimate. The legislation sets key requirements for payment stablecoins.
If I were on the board of a major bank, I’d ask: First, issuers cannot directly pay yield, meaning this digital currency won’t compete with traditional deposits and is a fully reserved form of digital currency. This raises another concern—if a deposit token is issued by a failed bank (e.g., Credit Suisse), would you accept it? Because if deposit tokens fail to comply with the GENIUS Act, they could become digital representations of bank balance sheet risks. This means your right to redeem dollars at face value could be affected by loans, credit risk, and maturity risk on the bank’s balance sheet. Thus, the GENIUS Act requires banks to issue stablecoins through independent entities and separate balance sheets to ensure safety.
Moreover, the GENIUS Act ends the era of misleading stablecoins. Cases like Terra Luna can no longer operate in the U.S. market. If a stablecoin issuer fails to prove the authenticity of its assets (via the “Jerry Maguire test”—a reference from the film Jerry Maguire, symbolizing validation of market demand and early ecosystem support as a key measure for a stablecoin’s viability in a competitive blockchain ecosystem), it could even face criminal penalties. The GENIUS Act imposes strict requirements on trust, transparency, and auditability, and holds responsible parties criminally liable. This ensures fake crypto dollars won’t reappear under the guise of stablecoins and collapse again.
What Circle Might Do When Yield-Bearing Stablecoins Are Eventually Approved
Laura：
I understand stablecoins themselves are somewhat centralized, but they’re completely different from the Terra Luna case. Still, I’d like to discuss yield-bearing stablecoins. Clearly, current law doesn’t allow them, and this restriction doesn’t fully serve consumer interests. In some ways, it’s even paradoxical, as this rule was pushed by Democrats. But it benefits Circle and similar companies. I understand the law won’t change soon, but when consumers realize this rule isn’t friendly to them, they may push for policy adjustments. If laws allow yield-bearing stablecoins, Circle might need to compete for customers by offering returns. Though this may not be your current focus, I think this scenario could happen in the future.
Dante：
We’ve definitely considered this. Let me share our perspective. The fully reserved stablecoin model solves a core early problem in crypto—consumer regret due to price volatility. Bitcoin, due to extreme price swings and appreciation, has largely lost its function as an internet medium of exchange and is now seen as digital gold, not a daily spending asset. The “Bitcoin Pizza Day” incident is a classic example that highlighted the need for fully reserved stable assets. This asset is not only a pricing mechanism for crypto transactions but also a vital medium of exchange for the internet economy.
Currently, both MiCA and the GENIUS Act prohibit stablecoin issuers from directly paying yield to token holders. But we believe yield is a key feature of crypto. Through secondary markets, DeFi and programmable currency-related lending functions can generate yield. The GENIUS Act bans regulated issuers from directly paying yield, but yield as a secondary market innovation remains a core function in this space. Just as physical dollars on bank balance sheets create loans and credit, fully reserved stablecoins become a foundational layer for the internet economy. Unlike traditional money, consumers enjoy additional advantages—liquidity unaffected by bank holidays, programmability, composability, and DeFi flexibility. These benefits vanish if the money isn’t fully reserved or carries risk. This is why we support both the GENIUS Act and MiCA, which have become the legal foundation for stablecoins in the U.S. and Europe.
Additionally, the U.S. needs further crypto market structure regulation to address other issues—such as defining commodities, securities, and digital collectibles, and handling integrated economic activities spanning banking, payments, and capital markets. I believe secondary market innovations and yield functions in stablecoins will find new growth opportunities in this space.
Laura：
I have a few more questions about Circle’s recent IPO. Shares traded at around $234 an hour ago, far above the IPO price of $31.
I’m curious about the atmosphere at the company since the IPO, because I think—at least in crypto—there might be a gap between pre-IPO expectations and actual results. Is that your sense too? Or are you surprised?
Dante：
Unfortunately, I can’t speak for the entire Circle on this. I can’t say much about stock prices or the IPO itself, but becoming a public company has always been Circle’s long-term goal. As a public company, we remain focused on the core principles driving our development—long-term growth. That’s probably the most I can share.
However, I believe the real news story right now is the GENIUS Act. In fact, I’m on my way to the White House to attend a signing ceremony for a law I’ve personally invested immense effort into. This moment is not only beneficial for the company but also profoundly significant for the nation and the market, as we’ve finally achieved legal clarity in the U.S.
How This New Law Might Impact Ordinary Americans and Their Money
Laura：
Final question. Looking ahead five years, how do you think this law will affect the lives of ordinary Americans, consumer rights, and America’s global standing?
Dante：
I once wrote an article titled “When Blockchain Is No Longer the Story, How We’ll Use It to Change the World.” I owe that opportunity to you, Laura Shin—you were editor at Forbes then and gave me the chance. I believe the GENIUS Act, along with upcoming U.S. market structure regulations, will shift crypto and blockchain technology from obvious applications toward deeper infrastructure, with their impacts gradually emerging.
I hope that within five years, we not only solidify the dollar’s role as the core currency of the internet economy and use it as a strategic advantage in global competition, but also bring secure, reliable, smartphone-based financial services to more people. These services go beyond simple payments to include savings, loans, credit, and other complex financial activities, offering consumers greater convenience and benefits. So the U.S. has officially entered this space.
Just yesterday, I attended a global meeting with about forty or fifty international regulators and central bank representatives. For the first time in seven years in this field, I could confidently say the U.S. is establishing a legal framework for the crypto and blockchain industry, no longer relying solely on private-sector performance to represent the nation.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
