A New Beginning It’s been almost ten years since lawmakers started circling the big question: how do you regulate an industry that’s redefining what assets even are? Congress’s efforts to pass digital asset legislation finally broke through with the historic enactment of the GENIUS Act (stablecoins) and the passage of the CLARITY Act (market structure) in the House of Representatives—passing 294-134, with 78 Democrats voting in favor.  The Senate is now considering market structure, with two competing bills vying for attention: the House’s CLARITY Act and the Senate Banking Committee’s discussion draft of the Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025 (RFIA), made public in late July by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Sen. Cynthia Lummis (Chair of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets), Sen. Bill Hagerty (the primary force behind the GENIUS Act), and Sen. Bernie Moreno. Along with the draft RFIA, the group released a wide‑ranging Request for Information (RFI), seeking feedback on many topics including definitions of terms, issuer disclosures, trading venue obligations, custody, insolvency, illicit finance, bank activities, trading by insiders, and federal preemption of state laws.  Since the Senate Banking Committee has oversight authority over the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) but not the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Senate Agriculture Committee will develop its own language to be combined with the RFIA to address the areas that will be within the CFTC’s remit.  Comparing RFIA and CLARITY  Here’s where things get technical and interesting: the starting point for each bill is very different because of the way each defines the assets that will be regulated. CLARITY calls the relevant asset a “digital commodity,” which is defined as “a digital asset that is intrinsically linked to a blockchain system, and the value of which is derived from or is reasonably expected to be derived from the use of the blockchain system (emphasis added).” RFIA uses the term “ancillary asset,” which is defined as “an intangible, commercially fungible asset, including a digital commodity, that is offered, sold, or otherwise distributed to a person in connection with the purchase and sale of a security through an arrangement that constitutes an investment contract (emphasis added)” and does not include an asset that provides certain financial rights. Ancillary asset seems the much broader definition because it encompasses any asset that is the subject of an investment contract, while digital commodity is limited to assets that are native to blockchain networks. Yes, this part is dense, but definitions like this decide what and who gets regulated, and how. Despite this vast difference, the two bills proceed to specify regulatory regimes that are fairly similar. Both focus on the existence of an investment contract as the trigger for the obligations and regulatory structure. They impose disclosure and other obligations on those who distribute the assets when they are the subject of an investment contract and give jurisdiction to the SEC on that basis. They also place limits on insider selling and take up other issues related to the assets. Both give jurisdiction to the SEC over the issuer or originator who conducts the distribution through an investment contract and jurisdiction over secondary markets to the CFTC (as noted above, Senate Agriculture must weigh in on those requirements). Both require rulemakings from the SEC and CFTC to accommodate these new requirements, with CLARITY specifying many new types of intermediaries under the CFTC’s purview and associated rulemakings. RFIA and CLARITY diverge in one more significant way. CLARITY imposes a “mature blockchain” requirement while RFIA does not. Mature blockchain is the key to allowing distributors to have lighter burdens, insiders to trade more freely, and escaping other requirements. While RFIA utilizes a “common control” concept to place or relieve limits on insider trading, it does not require a mature blockchain for any purposes. Still, the rapid pace of blockchain innovation may create practical challenges for designing and implementing an effective and lasting regulatory framework. Prescriptive definitions embedded in legislation may produce unintended downstream consequences that constrain innovation as the industry and applications of blockchain technology evolve. In other words, when Congress locks in a definition like “mature blockchain,” it risks boxing out some current innovators as well as tomorrow’s new innovations. And where the concept does not have a hard cut-over, the model risks inhibiting use cases as an asset shifts between SEC and CFTC oversight, creating uncertainty for all stakeholders and driving up legal and compliance costs. By contrast, a technology‑neutral, principles‑based approach, consistent with the SEC and CFTC submissions below, would maintain effective oversight while affording innovators the flexibility and regulatory certainty necessary to experiment and BUILD. Informing Regulation  While Congress is hard at work on legislation, we should not forget that the SEC and the CFTC have the ability to promulgate regulations. At the CFTC, Acting Chairman Pham has commenced a “crypto sprint” soliciting comments on how the agency might regulate crypto trading and other activities, first through a targeted request and then through a broader request aimed at addressing the recommendations from the President’s Working Group report. We submitted a comment letter in response to the first request, suggesting a framework by which the CFTC could allow its registered intermediaries to open the markets for protocol tokens, those tokens that are integral to the functioning of a protocol, whether blockchain, smart contract or otherwise.  Comments on the second request are due October 20, 2025. Over at the SEC, its Crypto Task Force has been actively soliciting information since February 21, 2025, with Commissioner Peirce’s speech laying out 48 topics on which to provide feedback. We submitted two comment letters. On April 23, 2025, we discussed token classification, decentralization, and the need to ensure that infrastructure providers are not confused with intermediaries. On May 27, 2025, we discussed the “nature of the activity” test as the means by which to evaluate whether an activity constituted intermediary or infrastructure services.   SEC Chairman Atkins gave an important speech on July 31, 2025, about American leadership in crypto and providing a high-level roadmap for the SEC to help achieve that goal. We responded with a comment letter on September 3, 2025 outlining a framework for the SEC to regulate pre-functionality offers and sales of protocol tokens as well as proposing rulemakings to allow SEC-regulated intermediaries to conduct trading and related activities in protocol tokens. With both agencies focused on developing regulations, through rulemaking, exemptive relief or otherwise, we expect to see initial output from both this fall. Stay Active and Engaged As Congress deliberates on how to implement an enduring and flexible approach to digital asset regulation and the SEC and CFTC invite comment on regulatory proposals, now is the time to educate, inform and advocate. Ava Labs and Avalanche Policy Alliance (our new name for Owl Explains!)  are proud to participate in many of the ongoing initiatives and advise on how the United States can maintain its global competitiveness in digital assets through public policy and regulation. For more information, see our resources page that includes explainers, articles, comment letters, and issue-specific material on DeFi, tokenization of assets, and stablecoins. Or give us a hoot! 

Bridging the Atlantic: How the UK and US are Shaping the Future of Stablecoins 2025 - affectionately known to us Owls as the Year of the Stablecoin - has certainly lived up to expectations in the policy stakes.  In the US, President Trump signed the long awaited the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act into law on July 18, establishing the first federal framework for so-called “payment stablecoins” (seemingly just about any stablecoin). At the same time, the FCA has recently closed its consultation on a regulatory framework for stablecoins in the UK. With these two major jurisdictions finalizing their regulatory frameworks for fiat-backed stablecoins, understanding the differences between their approaches provides insights not just for issuers, but for global market design and those thinking broadly about the potential impacts of a world full of stablecoins in multiple currencies. We briefly compare and contrast key aspects of the two regimes, and suggest what this means in practice. Scene Setting  Both regimes would regulate the issuance of stablecoins and the issuers and intermediaries who support them.  They start with similar definitions of stablecoins:  essentially those fiat-denominated stablecoins that can be used in payments.  Stablecoins linked to other assets are left to other regulation.  We Owls have explained how regulation of these other assets might work, including to the SEC Crypto Task Force and in response to an FCA consultation. One key element mandated by the GENIUS Act and the FCA’s consultation is the requirement that issuers maintain 1:1 backing of their stablecoins with high-quality, liquid reserve assets (essentially cash and cash equivalents). Both approaches also set enforceable standards for who may issue a stablecoin, redemption rights, disclosures, and custody of the backing assets.  Let’s dig a bit into the details, comparing and contrasting the two approaches. Keeping It In Reserve In the US, an issuer’s stablecoins must be backed up one-to-one by eligible instruments, such as: US currency, demand deposits or deposits held at Federal Reserve Banks; Treasury bills or bonds with a maturity of 93 days or less; Funding secured through a repurchase agreement backed by T-bills and cleared at a registered Central Clearing Agency (CCA); Securities issued by a registered investment company or other money market fund; Any similarly liquid federal government-issued assets approved by the issuer’s regulators; and Tokenized versions of eligible instruments that comply with applicable laws. In the UK, an issuer will only be able to hold “core backing assets” for the one-to-one backing, comprised of:  short term deposits, short-term government debt instruments; longer term government debt instruments that mature in over one year; units in a Public Debt CNAV Money Market Fund (PDCNAV MMF); and assets, rights or money held as a counterparty to a repurchase agreements or a reverse repurchase agreements. Both jurisdictions require that the reserves be segregated and not commingled with the issuer’s operational funds.  Verdict: aligned. A Shot At Redemption In the US, customers must have a clear, enforceable right to redeem stablecoins for the reference currency (e.g., U.S. dollars) on demand. The GENIUS Act requires issuers to publish a redemption policy that promises “timely redemption” of stablecoins for fiat, with any fees disclosed in plain language and capped (fees can only be changed with seven days’ notice). Regulators are expected to formalize operational expectations in the required implementing rulemakings. In the UK, the FCA has proposed that any stablecoin holder can redeem directly with the issuer in one business day. It proposes requiring that any fees charged for redemption be commensurate with the operational costs incurred for executing redemption. In all cases fees must not exceed the value of the stablecoins being redeemed, or pass on costs and losses arising from the sale of assets in the backing asset pool. Verdict: to be determined. The FCA’s T+1 proposal is stringent, and more so than other regimes, such as the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation in the EU. Permitting a more flexible redemption timeline could give the US a competitive edge, although the consumer aspect may also be important. What’s The Issue(ance) The GENIUS Act’s general rule is that only U.S.-regulated issuers can directly issue stablecoins to U.S. users, but it creates a possible exception for foreign issuers that meet strict criteria and obtain a form of U.S. approval. Foreign issuers may issue stablecoins in the U.S., and digital asset service providers may offer or sell such issuer’s payment stablecoin, if the foreign issuer: Is subject to regulation and supervision by a foreign regulator that the U.S. Treasury determines is “comparable” to the regulatory and supervisory regime under GENIUS, a determination which Treasury has 210 days to make; Is registered with the OCC; Holds reserves in a U.S. financial institution sufficient to meet liquidity demands of U.S. customers; and The foreign jurisdiction in which the issuer is based is not subject to comprehensive economic sanctions.  In the UK, anyone wishing to issue a qualifying stablecoin must be authorised and regulated by the FCA. However, issuers based overseas, even if they are issuing a GBP stablecoin and/or issuing to UK customers, do not require FCA authorisation, unless they are also conducting another UK-regulated activity. While this allows for a theoretical route for UK customers to access unregulated overseas stablecoins, in practice most UK customers will be relying on intermediaries like a trading platform, which would be in scope of local UK regulation.  Verdict: not aligned.  The UK may have a competitive advantage by allowing foreign issuers more flexibility. No Interest In That Both the GENIUS Act and the UK FCA do not allow stablecoin issuers to pay their holders any form of interest or yield (whether in the form of cash, tokens or other consideration) if it is solely related to holding, retention or use of the coins.  Both are silent on other types of programs such as rebates to intermediaries that might be passed on to consumers. In both instances, it seems that the boundary between prohibited yield and permissible rewards tied to other activity may be subject to future rulemaking and regulatory interpretation. Verdict: aligned What About Implementation? The GENIUS Act becomes effective on the earlier of 18 months after enactment - that is, January 18, 2027, or 120 days after the primary federal payment stablecoin regulators (e.g. Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, SEC/CFTC) issue final implementing regulations. Additionally, within 1 year of enactment (i.e. by July 18, 2026), Primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators, The Secretary of the Treasury, and each state payment stablecoin regulator must issue proposed and final rules via notice-and-comment. Three years after enactment (by July 18, 2028) it becomes unlawful for any digital-asset service provider (e.g., exchanges, custodial wallets) to offer or sell payment stablecoins in the US unless those stablecoins are issued by a permitted payment stablecoin issuer under the Act. So what does that actually mean for firms? Market participants have roughly 12 months (until mid‑2026) to prepare for proposed regulatory standards. Full compliance requirements kick in by early 2027, unless regulators finalize rules sooner. Digital-asset platforms must ensure that all payment stablecoins offered in the U.S. are issued by authorized entities by mid‑2028. Up until then, platforms may continue to offer and sell stablecoins that have not been issued by permitted stablecoin issuers. In the UK, assuming the FCA sticks to its 2024 Roadmap, firms can expect final rules published in the first half of 2026, with the regime switching on, at the earliest, late 2026. However, there is likely to be a phased implementation period, with firms who have an existing MLR registration or an existing FSMA authorization treated differently to firms seeking FCA authorization for the first time. If the UK is nimble and decisive, it could match the US’s timeline of full compliance by early 2027. However, given the level of commitment and pace of legislation as demonstrated by GENIUS, it seems inevitable that the UK is going to land its regime after the US.   The View From The Nest While both jurisdictions are moving swiftly to bring stablecoin activity within the regulatory perimeter, their paths diverge in meaningful ways. The UK’s rules reflect a strong focus on financial services oversight and bank-level safeguards, while the US approach is more explicitly centered on payment system stability and state–federal alignment around issuer regulation. Whether this divergence ultimately fosters jurisdictional competition, interoperability or friction will depend on how these rules are implemented - and how responsive they remain to a market still evolving at speed. We intend to host some local invite-only events in various locations around the world in the coming months to learn more about how the experts are thinking about stablecoins and their impacts on payments, banking and the overall digital economy.  We will share the key themes from each event with everyone.