{"id":30833,"date":"2026-07-18T19:26:59","date_gmt":"2026-07-18T18:26:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/07\/18\/genius-act-first-regulatory-deadline-missed\/"},"modified":"2026-07-18T19:27:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-18T18:27:08","slug":"genius-act-first-regulatory-deadline-missed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/genius-act-first-regulatory-deadline-missed\/","title":{"rendered":"GENIUS Act: First Regulatory Deadline Missed \u2014 What Happens Now?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The GENIUS Act<\/strong>, the flagship US Congress<\/strong> bill on stablecoin<\/strong> regulation, has just missed its first major implementation deadline. It’s a warning sign for an industry that has been waiting on clear rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind this delay lie deep tensions between traditional banks<\/strong>, federal regulators<\/strong>, and the crypto industry<\/strong>. The road ahead looks far more complicated than anyone anticipated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s a breakdown of what’s blocking progress, what each stakeholder is demanding, and what this concretely means for the future of stablecoins in the United States<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Missed Deadline That Exposes the Fractures in the Legislative Process<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins)<\/strong> was presented as the foundational piece of stablecoin regulation in the United States. Passed out of the Senate Banking Committee with bipartisan support, it set regulators a precise timetable to produce the first implementing rules. That timetable has not been met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This failure is far from trivial. It illustrates the structural difficulty of translating legislation into operational regulation when multiple federal agencies \u2014 including the Fed, the OCC, and the FDIC<\/strong> \u2014 must coordinate. Each agency is defending its own jurisdictional turf, and reaching consensus takes time. The result is a persistent regulatory grey area<\/strong> that leaves stablecoin issuers scrambling to achieve compliance without any clear framework to comply with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For market participants, this delay carries real consequences. Stablecoin issuers such as Circle<\/a> and Paxos<\/strong> cannot finalize their compliance structures without precise rules governing reserves, audits, and capital requirements. Legal uncertainty<\/strong> remains total, and with it comes the risk of regulatory arbitrage in favor of other jurisdictions \u2014 with Europe leading the way, its MiCA framework<\/a> already fully operational<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Banks Push Back and Demand a Revision of the Proposed Rules<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Among the most active players in this regulatory standoff, major US banks<\/strong> have taken a firm stance. They are explicitly calling for a revision of the rules proposed under the GENIUS Act, arguing that certain provisions create an uneven playing field<\/strong> between bank and non-bank stablecoin issuers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core of the dispute centers on access to dollar reserves<\/strong> and the conditions under which non-bank entities \u2014 fintechs and crypto firms \u2014 could issue stablecoins backed by safe assets. Banks argue that these entities would benefit from a lighter regulatory regime without bearing the same prudential constraints<\/strong> that banks are subject to. It’s an argument that carries significant weight in the corridors of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This banking pressure is mechanically slowing down the rulemaking process. Regulators must now incorporate these objections into their public consultations, pushing the prospect of a final regulatory framework even further out. According to several analysts closely tracking the issue in Washington<\/strong>, a final rule adoption before the end of 2025<\/strong> now looks increasingly unlikely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Does This Mean for the Stablecoin Market?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The stablecoin market currently represents more than $230 billion in total market capitalization<\/strong>, with over 60% dominated by Tether’s USDT<\/a><\/strong>. Paradoxically, this US regulatory vacuum benefits offshore issuers, who face far fewer transparency requirements. Tether<\/strong>, registered in the British Virgin Islands<\/strong>, continues to operate without any binding US federal framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For players banking on clear regulation \u2014 Circle with USDC<\/strong> chief among them \u2014 every month of delay is a month of competitiveness lost to less scrupulous rivals. Europe<\/strong>, meanwhile, is pressing ahead: the MiCA regulation<\/strong> has, since June 2024, imposed strict requirements on stablecoin issuers operating across the continent, setting a precedent that Washington<\/strong> is watching closely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The central question remains unanswered: will the GENIUS Act<\/strong> manage to deliver a coherent regulatory framework<\/strong> before the market definitively organizes itself around other standards? The accumulated delays are deepening doubts about the ability of the US legislative system<\/strong> to effectively regulate an industry that moves at a pace entirely incompatible with traditional institutional timelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n