Circle Chief Strategy Officer: Regarding stablecoins, the war has just begun

Compiled by | Shenchao TechFlow  

Guest | Dante Disparte, Chief Strategy Officer and Head of Global Policy & Operations at Circle  

Host | Laura Shin  

### Key Takeaways  

After years of hostility, the United States has finally passed its first federal law governing the crypto industry.  

The bipartisan-supported stablecoin legislation, the *GENIUS Act*, was signed into law by President Trump following last-minute congressional standoffs. Though widely expected to pass, the bill’s approval faced turbulence this week: Democrats raised objections over Trump’s ties to cryptocurrency, and the Freedom Caucus abruptly rebelled over provisions opposing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).  

Now that the bill is law, what impact will it have? Who stands to gain or lose?  

In this episode, Dante Disparte—Circle’s Chief Strategy Officer and a key figure behind the legislation—explains:  

- How the bill secured bipartisan support amid political tensions  

- Why banks may hesitate before issuing stablecoins  

- Why Circle is applying for a national trust bank charter  

Additionally, the discussion covers debates over interest-bearing stablecoins, how the bill fits into broader financial regulatory frameworks, and whether U.S. consumers and the dollar will benefit.  

### Highlights of Insights  

- Access to money should be as free as possible.  

- Crucially, the crypto industry finally gets what it has long craved: legalization, a clear path under U.S. laws and regulations, and a chance to compete.  

- The *GENIUS Act* is about far more than crypto itself. It may be the first financial regulatory bill in U.S. history aimed at fostering growth, competition, and consumer protection—centered on setting clear rules for the market and creating a rules-based competitive environment.  

- By establishing clear market rules, the *GENIUS Act* ultimately benefits U.S. consumers and market participants most, while further solidifying the dollar’s role in the global economy.  

- A critical aspect of the *GENIUS Act* is the concept of international reciprocity, empowering the U.S. Treasury to promote American regulatory frameworks globally. This ensures the U.S. leads in shaping international rules rather than passively adopting others’ standards—applying not just to crypto but to the global use of stablecoins.  

- Throughout my career, I’ve often represented U.S. interests at international institutions and government banking meetings as a private-sector voice. Now, for the first time, the U.S. has an official seat at the table in rulemaking.  

- Significant gaps in global financial access persist, and both the U.S. and other nations urgently need alternatives to existing payment systems. Future competition may revolve around data as an asset. In an era where data is called “the new oil,” could blockchain become the “new tool” to carry this data? It’s a question worth pondering.  

- The full-reserve stablecoin model solves a core early crypto problem: consumer regret from price volatility. These assets serve not just as pricing mechanisms for crypto transactions but as vital mediums of exchange in the internet economy.  

- The *GENIUS Act* and upcoming U.S. market structure regulations will shift crypto and blockchain from obvious applications to deeper infrastructure, with their impacts unfolding gradually.  

- Over the next five years, I hope we not only entrench the dollar as the core currency of the internet economy—using it as a strategic advantage in global competition—but also expand access to secure, smart-device-based financial services for more people.  

### “Crypto Week” Surpassed All Expectations  

**Laura**: This is a pivotal moment for the crypto industry. This week marks the end of what Congress dubbed “Crypto Week.” The *GENIUS Act* we’re discussing—the first major U.S. crypto legislation—will soon be signed into law by President Trump. Years in the making by multiple lawmakers, it aims to regulate stablecoins. Before we started recording, you mentioned you’ve worked on this for seven years. While many expected smooth passage early in this administration, the final outcome felt far less certain.  

What created the suspense, and how did it ultimately pass?  

**Dante**: Indeed, “Crypto Week” wouldn’t feel complete without political maneuvering and drama. One of this week’s biggest surprises was the pushback against central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—it caught many off guard.  

But what matters is the result, which exceeded all expectations. First, the *GENIUS Act* passed with over 300 votes, including 102 Democrats joining Republicans. In today’s deeply polarized U.S. politics, this bipartisan achievement reflects national interests and the dollar’s global economic importance. It’s a significant milestone.  

Two other bills also made progress: The *Clarity Act*, the House’s response to crypto market structure legislation, gained broad bipartisan support and is expected to be debated in the Senate. Meanwhile, provisions opposing CBDCs signal that the U.S. will actively compete in global digital currencies by regulating dollar stablecoins.  

### How the *GENIUS Act* Won Bipartisan Support Amid Political Friction  

**Laura**: As you noted, the bill ultimately garnered wide support. However, Democrats raised concerns about the Trump administration’s crypto-related business activities—particularly World Freedom Financial’s plans for its own stablecoin.  

I’m curious: How were Democrats persuaded to back the bill in such numbers? Early on, this seemed unlikely.  

**Dante**: First, frankly, crypto legislation has become a bipartisan issue in the U.S. It’s led me to joke that I’ve united Washington twice in my career. The first was during the Libra project, when Republicans and Democrats aligned in opposition, sparking hearings and controversy. Ironically, that opposition forged unexpected bipartisanship.  

Fast forward to today: This bill underwent countless hearings, interagency meetings, and public consultations. The Biden administration issued an executive order on digital assets, while the Trump administration took a sincere, growth-oriented whole-of-government approach to advancing these technologies—especially alongside AI. Without addressing key interests, including potential political divides, the *GENIUS Act* wouldn’t have secured 18 Democratic Senate votes, let alone such House success. It’s a crucial victory.  

For us, the key is that the crypto industry finally gets legalization, a clear path under U.S. laws, and a chance to compete—something it’s long sought.  

### Why Dante Believes the Bill’s Significance Extends Beyond Crypto  

**Laura**: Circle is widely seen as one of the biggest winners from this bill. What specific rules does it set for regulating companies? Which are included, and which excluded? Clearly, some firms will legally operate stablecoin-related businesses in the U.S., while others must meet higher standards to enter. Could you briefly explain how the bill impacts different players and changes their operations?  

**Dante**: First, I believe the *GENIUS Act* is about far more than crypto. It may be America’s first financial regulatory bill focused on growth, competition, and consumer protection—rooted in clear market rules and a level playing field. I’m eager to highlight its unique aspects.  

First, it preserves state authority over banking and payments—a past hurdle in stablecoin legislation. The U.S. financial system operates on “fintech federalism,” with states regulating banks and payments independently. The *GENIUS Act* respects this tradition. Additionally, banks, non-banks, and credit unions can issue $1 billion-plus USD payment stablecoins under a federal framework overseen primarily by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), fostering international competition.  

The bill includes nuanced provisions, such as rules for international product portability, ensuring products compliant with foreign regulatory structures can flow freely between the U.S. and abroad. Notably, the so-called “Libra clause” requires non-banks or commercial firms issuing stablecoins (or “Vanity Stablecoins” – Shenchao TechFlow note: a new stablecoin concept for personalized or branded needs, allowing unique, blockchain-based tokens) to establish separate entities (like Circle, not banks), address antitrust concerns, and secure approval from a Treasury-led committee. This sets safeguards while raising entry barriers.  

For banks issuing stablecoins under the Act, they must create separate entities, isolate operations from core banking, and manage issuance/redemption differently than traditional lending or credit creation—even more conservatively than the “deposit token” era.  

This raises a key question: Will banks adopt conservative balance sheet strategies—no risk-taking, leverage, or lending, focusing solely on stablecoin issuance? Or will they compete in this niche via core banking services? Ultimately, the bill’s clear rules benefit U.S. consumers and market participants most, while strengthening the dollar globally.  

### How Circle Plans to Compete with Banking Giants  

**Laura**: Let’s discuss big banks. This week, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Citi moved toward launching stablecoins or exploring them. While the bill doesn’t fully cover their actions, they’re entering Circle’s space. JPMorgan also plans a deposit token. Currently, Circle’s USDC is used mainly in trading and DeFi, with Coinbase as its top partner, and will soon be used by millions of Shopify merchants on Coinbase’s Base network.  

Circle is thus more crypto-native, while banks reach more non-crypto users—a larger market. How will Circle compete?  

**Dante**: It’s an interesting question. In debates over digital currency competition between banks, non-banks, and central banks, our model and belief is: once clear rules exist, tokenized money isn’t the breakthrough—technology in banking and payments infrastructure is.  

Our long-term vision is an internet-based financial system, using blockchain to connect global funds and services. As you know, USDC is a multi-chain innovation driving interoperability between blockchains. It builds trusted infrastructure to reach areas traditional banking and payments can’t.  

This isn’t anti-bank—it relies on partnerships, leveraging banks’ real-economy trust and security. The *GENIUS Act* will spark competition at multiple levels, boosting the U.S. economy and the market. It’s also the best way to scale digital asset adoption, requiring full interoperability with traditional finance.  

Crucially, before the Act, the U.S. lacked clear crypto and non-bank payment regulations. Libra, for example, moved to Switzerland, where it could be regulated as financial infrastructure. The *GENIUS Act* creates a “U.S.-first” framework without isolationism, letting Circle, U.S. banks, and firms compete globally without their internet-based digital dollar models受制于 foreign rules. This matters as stablecoin-CBDC competition intensifies. Last week’s discussions showed nations seeking alternatives to the dollar and payment systems.  

**Laura**: To clarify: I thought the bill focused on U.S. domestic activity, but it seems to impact stablecoin use abroad too?  

**Dante**: Exactly. This key provision originated in the House. Recall: House and Senate had different stablecoin bills—the House’s “Stable Act” and the Senate’s *GENIUS Act*.  

The final *GENIUS Act* incorporated House improvements, securing 102 Democratic votes. Critical among these is international reciprocity, empowering the U.S. Treasury to promote American regulatory frameworks globally. This ensures U.S. leadership in rulemaking, not just compliance—applying to crypto and global stablecoin use. For me, it’s a milestone: after years representing U.S. interests at international forums as a private citizen, America now has an official voice in these debates.  

### What Circle Hopes to Achieve with Its National Trust Bank Application  

**Laura**: In late June, Circle applied to create a U.S. national trust bank, allowing it to manage its own reserves and offer crypto custody to institutional clients. What’s the plan for this bank?  

**Dante**: Custody and safeguards are part of it. With the *GENIUS Act*, U.S. non-bank stablecoin issuers must secure OCC charters and trust licenses. Our move anticipates future regulatory requirements—consistent with our approach in Europe under the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework.  

We aim for excellence. When Europe developed MiCA over years, we established a presence in France, secured an e-money license, and ensured Circle’s USDC and euro stablecoins were among the first MiCA-compliant products. Mirroring this in the U.S. makes sense as regulations take shape.  

**Laura**: A follow-up on bank competition: *Fortune* recently reported JPMorgan plans to charge fintechs for data access. For example, if Plaid—connecting your partner Coinbase to client banks—uses JPMorgan, free data interfaces may soon cost money. Could this hinder Circle? How would you respond to such bank fees?  

**Dante**: It’s complex, with unclear impacts. But one thing is clear: debates over the right to use money freely have raged for years—that’s why I joined this industry. I believe access to money should be as free as possible.  

Traditional banking payments resemble the landline era: higher fees for longer calls. Future competition may center on data as an asset. In the “data as new oil” era, could blockchain become the “new tool” to carry it? It’s a thought-provoking question.  

### Why Financial Privacy Matters in the U.S. System  

**Dante**: Americans deeply value financial privacy—an key reason for CBDC opposition. True privacy, though, requires clear rules and fair competition to safely deliver private, full-service financial tools. Crypto wallets play a role here, offering secure storage and management while protecting privacy.  

Stablecoins now enable this via the dollar, supported by mobile digital wallets, open-source wallets, and blockchain infrastructure—reaching everyone. Post-*GENIUS Act*, consumers will have more privacy-protective options. If big institutions compete by monetizing data, the Act offers alternatives that don’t require sacrificing privacy.  

### How Deposit Tokens Differ from Stablecoins  

**Laura**: Deposit tokens are gaining attention, but I’m unfamiliar with them. Each unit represents a share of bank deposits. How do they differ from stablecoins in use? Do they have widespread potential? Where might they be used? Are they competitors or just different tools? How should consumers view them?  

**Dante**: It’s nuanced. As a CBDC opponent, I’ve researched this, drawing on academic work. Deposit tokens and stablecoins share similarities. The *GENIUS Act* allows banks to issue payment stablecoins but deems them the only legal option, with key requirements.  

As a hypothetical bank board member, I’d ask: First, issuers can’t pay interest, so these digital currencies won’t compete with traditional deposits—they’re full-reserve. This raises a question: Would you accept a deposit token from a failed bank (e.g., Credit Suisse)? Without *GENIUS Act* compliance, deposit tokens could digitize bank balance sheet risks, tying your right to USD redemption to loans, credit risks, or maturity risks. Hence, the Act requires banks to issue stablecoins via separate entities with isolated balance sheets—ensuring safety.  

The Act also ends the era of “stablecoins in name only.” Cases like Terra Luna can’t trade in the U.S. Issuers failing to prove asset authenticity (via the “Jerry Maguire test” – Shenchao TechFlow note: a metaphor from the film *Jerry Maguire*, referring to validating market demand and early ecosystem support as a key test for stablecoin viability) may face criminal charges. Strict trust, transparency, and audit rules—with personal liability—prevent fraudulent crypto dollars from collapsing as “stablecoins.”  

### What Circle Might Do if Interest-Bearing Stablecoins Are Approved  

**Laura**: Stablecoins are somewhat centralized, but unlike Terra Luna. I want to discuss interest-bearing stablecoins. Current law prohibits them, which isn’t fully pro-consumer—oddly, pushed by Democrats. Yet this benefits Circle and peers. While rules may not change soon, consumer demand could drive policy shifts. If allowed, Circle might need to compete by offering yields. It’s not your focus now, but could this happen?  

**Dante**: We’ve considered it. Here’s our view: Full-reserve stablecoins solve a core early crypto issue—regret from price swings. Bitcoin’s volatility and appreciation sidelined it as an internet medium of exchange, rebranding it as “digital gold” rather than daily currency. The “Bitcoin Pizza Day” incident, for example, spurred demand for full-reserve stable assets—serving as both crypto pricing mechanisms and internet economy exchange mediums.  

MiCA and the *GENIUS Act* ban direct interest payments to token holders, but we see yield as a key crypto feature. Secondary markets, DeFi, and lending with programmable money can generate returns. The Act prohibits regulated issuers from paying interest directly, but yield as a secondary market innovation remains core—just as physical dollars enable loans and credit on bank balance sheets. Full-reserve stablecoins form the internet economy’s base layer, offering advantages like bank-holiday-proof liquidity, programmability, composability, and DeFi flexibility—unachievable with risky, non-full-reserve funds. This is why we support the *GENIUS Act* and MiCA as legal foundations for transatlantic stablecoins.  

The U.S. also needs further crypto market structure regulation to address issues like classifying commodities, securities, and digital collectibles, and handling cross-sector economic activities. Secondary market innovation and stablecoin yields will likely thrive here.  

**Laura**: A few questions about Circle’s recent IPO. Shares traded around $234 an hour ago—far above the $31 IPO price.  

I’m curious about the post-IPO atmosphere. In crypto, at least, there’s often a gap between pre-IPO expectations and reality. Do you feel that, or is it surprising?  

**Dante**: Unfortunately, I can’t speak for Circle as a whole. I can’t comment much on stock prices or the IPO itself, but going public was a long-term goal. As a public company, we remain focused on long-term growth—the core principle driving us. That’s all I can share.  

But the real news is the *GENIUS Act*. I’m actually heading to the White House for the signing of a law I’ve poured my heart into. It’s not just good for the company, but for the nation and market—finally, legal clarity in the U.S.  

### How the New Law Might Impact Everyday Americans and Their Money  

**Laura**: Final question. Looking five years ahead, how do you think this law will affect everyday Americans’ lives, consumer rights, and U.S. global standing?  

**Dante**: I wrote an article titled “How We’ll Change the World with Blockchain When It Stops Being a Topic”—thanks to you, Laura, for publishing it when you edited *Forbes*. I believe the *GENIUS Act* and upcoming U.S. market structure rules will shift crypto and blockchain from visible applications to foundational infrastructure, with impacts unfolding gradually.  

Over five years, I hope we not only cement the dollar as the internet economy’s core currency—using it as a global competitive advantage—but also expand access to secure, smart-device-based financial services. These should include not just payments but savings, loans, and credit—delivering greater convenience and value. The U.S. is officially in this race.  

Just yesterday, I attended a global conference where I interacted with approximately forty to fifty representatives from international regulatory agencies and central banks. This was the first time in my seven years of working in this field that I could confidently say that the United States is formulating a legal framework for the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry, no longer relying solely on the performance of the private sector to represent the country.