As the U.S. Congress inches closer to regulating digital assets, two competing bills. the STABLE Act and the GENIUS Act, have emerged at the center of the conversation. Understanding the difference between the STABLE Act and GENIUS Yasası is essential for anyone following U.S. crypto regulation in 2025, as these proposals carry significant implications for stablecoin issuers, banks, fintechs, and crypto users alike.

 

The Legislative Backdrop

Both bills aim to regulate stablecoins, which are digital assets pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar. However, their approaches reflect different philosophies. The STABLE Act, first introduced in 2020 and reworked in 2025 by the House Financial Services Committee, focuses on strict oversight and state-level flexibility. Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act, short for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, has gained traction in the Senate and is widely seen as a more market-friendly alternative.

 

Structural and Regulatory Differences

A key point of contrast lies in how the two bills define and regulate stablecoin issuers. The STABLE Act proposes that all issuers be treated like insured depository institutions, subject to full banking regulations. This would require them to obtain federal banking charters, hold FDIC insurance, and maintain capital requirements similar to traditional banks.

The GENIUS Act, in contrast, introduces a dual-track model. Bank-affiliated issuers would fall under Federal Reserve oversight, while non-bank issuers would be regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), provided they manage over $10 billion in assets. This model allows more flexibility for non-bank firms while still holding them accountable to federal standards.

 

Issuer Eligibility and Limitations

Under the STABLE Act, only banks or institutions approved as depository entities would be permitted to issue stablecoins. In practice, this could exclude major fintech players and crypto-native companies unless they restructure.

The GENIUS Act broadens eligibility but imposes certain boundaries. While it opens the door to fintechs and other entities, it explicitly bars non-financial publicly traded companies, like Meta or Amazon, from issuing stablecoins unless they meet enhanced privacy and financial safeguards. This was a key Senate compromise to address concerns over Big Tech influence in finance.

 

Reserve and Audit Requirements

Both bills mandate full backing of stablecoins, but their audit frameworks differ.

The GENIUS Yasası requires stablecoins to be backed 1:1 by cash or near-cash equivalents and calls for annual public audits for any issuer with more than $50 billion in market capitalization. It also establishes bankruptcy protections that prioritize stablecoin holders’ claims over other creditors.

The İSTİKRAR Yasası includes similar backing requirements but places greater emphasis on real-time supervision through bank-style examinations. It does not explicitly include a “super-priority” clause for stablecoin holders in bankruptcy, as the GENIUS Act does.

 

Uygulama ve Gözetim

In terms of who enforces the rules, the STABLE Act relies more heavily on state-level collaboration, allowing state regulators to take the lead in some areas, particularly in approval processes. This decentralization has drawn mixed reactions, with some praising the flexibility and others warning of potential inconsistencies.

The GENIUS Act leans on federal agencies, mainly the OCC and the Federal Reserve—for oversight. It also adds provisions for conflict-of-interest disclosures: government officials must report if they hold more than $5,000 in any payment stablecoin, and active participation in issuing a coin while in office is prohibited.

 

Political Support and Momentum

Currently, the GENIUS Act holds the advantage in terms of legislative momentum. On June 17, 2025, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill following successful bipartisan support in earlier procedural stages. The GENIUS Act has evolved through negotiation, securing enough Democratic support after addressing issues related to foreign issuers, AML compliance, and corporate involvement.

The STABLE Act, meanwhile, has been approved at the committee level in the House but has not yet moved to a full vote. Its stricter approach has raised concerns among free-market advocates and crypto entrepreneurs, who argue it could stifle innovation.

 

Hızlı Karşılaştırma Tablosu

Özellikler	GENIUS Yasası	İSTİKRAR Yasası
Issuer Eligibility	Banks & qualified non-banks	Banks only (depository institutions)
Oversight Authority	Fed (banks), OCC (non-banks)	Federal agencies + state regulators
Denetim Gereksinimi	Annual public audits (>$50B)	Bank-style real-time supervision
Stablecoin Desteği	1:1 cash or equivalents	1:1 backing, details defined by regulators
Big Tech Restrictions	Prohibits non-financial public firms	No specific provisions
Government Official Disclosures	Yes (>$5,000 holdings)	Belirtilmedi
Holder Protection in Bankruptcy	Super-priority status	Belirtilmedi
Legislative Progress (as of June 17)	Senate vote pending	Passed committee, no full House vote yet

 

Son Düşüncelerimiz

The STABLE Act vs GENIUS Act debate highlights two different visions for stablecoin regulation in the U.S.; one rooted in tight, traditional banking oversight, the other offering a more adaptive federal framework. As of now, the GENIUS Act appears closer to becoming law, with broader bipartisan support and more flexible pathways for innovation. But the STABLE Act remains an important reference point for how cautious legislators are thinking about risk in digital finance.

Whichever bill advances, the outcome will play a defining role in how the U.S. positions itself in the global stablecoin market.