After the GENIUS Act was enacted, the U.S. Treasury issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to gather public and industry input before drafting implementing regulations.

Some of the most influential submissions came from major banking and traditional finance associations, outlining how they believe U.S. stablecoin regulation should look.

J.W. Verret, Associate Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, submitted a detailed rebuttal pushing back on the banks’ expansive interpretation of statutory authority and their call to ban “indirect yield.”

We talk about that in this episode.

Timestamps:

➡️ 1:02 — Why this rulemaking matters

➡️ 2:55 — Why JW felt compelled to respond

➡️ 4:48 — How agencies use comments

➡️ 5:17 — What counts as ‘interest’ or ‘yield’?

➡️ 7:00 — The push to regulate affiliates and third-party providers

➡️ 10:34 — Why a prohibition on ‘indirect yield’ matters

➡️ 14:55 — Zcash, privacy tech, and Roman Storm

➡️ 18:00 — What happens next in GENIUS rulemaking

➡️ 19:11 — Do stablecoins drain bank deposits?

Sponsor: Day One Law, a boutique corporate law firm founded by Nick Pullman. Nick and his team at Day One provide strategic legal counsel to startups, crypto projects, and Web3 innovators. ⁠You can get in contact with them via this link⁠: ⁠⁠https://www.dayonelaw.xyz/#contact

Resources:

📓 GENIUS Act

📄 Joint Trades Letter (ABA + ICBA + BPI coalition)

✉️ J.W. Verret’s Rebuttal Letter