Written by: Luke, Sam, Li Zhongjing, Fat Mei Mei
Web3 Compliance Research Group Launches First Roundtable Column!
【Web3 Compliance Roundtable Talk】is a monthly dialogue column focusing on industry hotspots. Each issue, we invite 4 to 6 compliance research group members from different backgrounds such as law, technology, projects, and finance to respond to and debate core issues, systematically organizing diverse perspectives to present compliance insights with depth, angles, and practical value.
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed three legislative drafts on crypto regulation with an overwhelming majority of votes, namely the Genius Act, the Clear Act, and the Anti-CBDC Monitoring National Act. The Genius Act, described as an "important step in consolidating the United States' leadership in global financial and crypto technology," was officially signed into effect by Trump on the 18th and was reported by domestic media such as CCTV and financial outlets.
In this issue, we posed 5 questions to the outstanding members of the Web3 Compliance Research Group: "What does the Genius Act aim to do?", "How to understand the regulatory division of labor between SEC and CFTC in the Clear Act?", "Why does the U.S. oppose CBDC?", "Will these three acts inspire other countries' crypto regulation?", and "How will they affect the operation of crypto startup projects?"
Let's get to the main topic!
Q1: Can you explain in plain language what the Genius Act aims to do? Do stablecoins from countries outside the U.S. still have a chance to compete?
Luke:
Simply put, the Genius Act is a strict legal framework established by the U.S. government for stablecoins (like USDT and USDC) and their issuers. It clearly defines stablecoins, legally recognizing them while protecting the rights of issuers and consumers.
The main parts are three-fold.
First, the act defines stablecoins as 'payment stablecoins', explicitly stating they are not securities or commodities, meaning they have no investment appreciation attributes.
Second, it strictly requires stablecoin issuers to manage consumer-exchanged stablecoin principal with 1:1 high liquidity, mandating monthly public ledger disclosure. For stablecoin companies with a market value over $50 billion, annual audit reports and dual state and federal oversight are required to prevent de-pegging like Terra/Luna.
Third, it ensures user priority compensation if a stablecoin issuing company goes bankrupt, with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements similar to banks, ensuring transaction transparency.
[The translation continues in the same manner for the rest of the text, maintaining the original structure and translating all non-tagged content to English.]It is necessary to mention the definition of 'mature blockchain' in the bill. The bill defines a 'mature blockchain' as a network that meets legal conditions (such as decentralized governance, distributed ownership, and no single entity control) through a certification process to the SEC, and the SEC can also formulate additional rules to refine these standards. Specifically, certification includes proving the network's degree of decentralization, market adoption rate, openness, and interoperability. If certified (usually taking effect by default after submission unless the SEC objects), the blockchain is considered 'mature'.
Sam:
Dividing boundaries and managing their own domains, typical decentralization. SEC manages security tokens, POS algorithms, DeFi and the like; those decentralized and meeting the mature blockchain definition are classified as commodities, managed by CFTC.
Mature blockchain is more favorable for POW algorithm projects, because POW is the most original cryptocurrency, completely distributed, and these projects pursue technical extremes, optimizing algorithms and performance, practicing 'Code Is Law'. The industry has always believed that technological stack success does not represent chain success, and various quasi-securities regulations have been coming and going, causing the entry channel for technical personnel to shrink. Truly technical people dare not come in, afraid of being killed in one stroke, but now, everyone can write code with peace of mind without worrying about SEC knocking on the door. Miners can also expand production freely, reducing pressure on the chip industry, hardware prices will drop somewhat, and the POW break-even cycle has doubled from the previous round to the recent year, and currently seems likely to decline.
Afterwards, everyone plays their own game, SEC takes POS to the financial market to compete for APY, CFTC takes POW back to the blockchain's original intention.
Lawyer Li Zhongjing:
① The 'Clear Bill' ended the confusion in regulatory division between US SEC and CFTC in the crypto field, clearly defining digital commodities under CFTC management and restricted digital assets handled by SEC, further improving the US crypto regulatory framework. A clear and transparent regulatory environment is conducive to industry development. Any emerging industry is not afraid of regulation, but fears uncertainty caused by unclear regulatory responsibilities.
② The definition of "mature blockchain" brings an relatively objective standard to the industry, such as the maximum token holder's proportion not exceeding 20%, and no individual or entity can unilaterally control the blockchain or its applications. "Mature blockchain" allows projects initially issued as securities to transition to commodities after meeting "mature blockchain" standards, shifting from SEC regulation to CFTC regulation. This is very friendly to the crypto industry, as being defined as a security by SEC means extremely high compliance costs that many startups cannot afford, while being defined as a commodity by CFTC significantly reduces compliance costs.
(Translation continues in the same manner for the rest of the text)Here is the English translation:In China, everyone knows about the digital yuan, and the country has been promoting it, which is actually an example of CBDC. CBDC itself has obvious advantages, such as convenience and efficiency in payment settlement. Since the advantages are so clear, why oppose it? We need to look at this issue from a more macro perspective. Generally, individuals can hardly interface directly with the central bank, and commercial banks play an intermediary role. CBDC is a blockchain-based online banking service system operated by the central bank. If every individual can directly interface with the central bank for storage and loans, over time, commercial banks may become dispensable. I believe a large number of commercial banks might be forced to close, which would directly damage the stability of the existing economic and financial system. Moreover, the CBDC system is not entirely decentralized. If CBDC is issued and gains liquidity, how will personal financial assets be protected? KYC and AML still need to be done, so what's the difference from the online banking we currently use?
It's equivalent to adding blockchain technology to an already electronic banking system, with no essential improvement. The final result might be that there's no improvement while creating numerous potential problems - isn't this a case of losing the chicken and the rice? I personally prefer to move forward steadily, not blindly promoting CBDC extensively, or learning from Hong Kong's "sandbox" approach.
Q4: Will this trigger regulatory benchmarking in regions like the EU and Asia? How will the US approach affect the global Web3 regulatory landscape?
Luke:
The US Genius Act, Clear Act, and Anti-CBDC Act passed in 2025 may prompt the EU and Asian countries to benchmark its crypto regulation model. The EU's MiCA regulation might be refined to match US standards, with Japan and Singapore potentially emulating stablecoin regulation. India may balance innovation and compliance, while China might use the anti-CBDC opportunity to expand digital yuan influence, possibly developing RMB stablecoins like the US.
The global Web3 regulatory landscape will trend towards standardization, encouraging private stablecoins and DeFi. However, the US anti-CBDC stance might make it 'lag' in CBDC payment systems while elevating other private crypto asset platforms. This could trigger global regulatory competition, with capital flowing to regulation-friendly regions, potentially escalating geopolitical friction and testing US leadership in the digital economy.
[The translation continues in the same manner for the rest of the text.]②For non-stablecoin projects, project teams need to clearly recognize whether they are securities or commodities. In the past, when there was no regulation, project teams might only need to assemble technical development teams, security protection teams, and marketing teams to tell their narrative, raise funds, and go on-chain. However, this is no longer possible now. In the early stages of a project, project teams must establish professional compliance teams to deal with SEC or CFTC regulations, with compliance costs potentially even higher than R&D costs, making it difficult for small projects with insufficient capabilities to incubate. Fat Mei Mei: Yes, these three bills collectively establish clear "rules of the game" for the crypto industry. In the past few years, the crypto industry lacked clear rules, leading to regulatory uncertainty for legitimate entrepreneurs, while speculators profited from legal ambiguities. These three bills will reverse this situation. The bills provide detailed requirements for stablecoin issuers, trading platforms, and DeFi projects, and list many prohibited behaviors. Asset reserve requirements and fund separation systems increase funding and management costs, while financial information disclosure and auditing increase operational costs. For digital assets previously in gray areas, more resources must be invested to determine regulatory attributes, increasing compliance costs. Additionally, countries or institutions planning to issue central bank digital currencies may need to readjust their strategies and plans, further increasing compliance costs and uncertainty. The increased compliance costs may cause some small projects to exit the market, but they also provide a clear path for quality projects to develop long-term operational models in accordance with legal provisions, enabling stable and sustainable operations.
