
In recent years, U.S. regulators have consistently taken a cautious approach towards stablecoins. The reason is that the scale of stablecoins has rapidly expanded, yet there is a lack of a unified regulatory framework, which poses risks to financial stability.
The passage of the “GENIUS Act” marks a shift in regulatory thinking: rather than excluding stablecoins, it is better to incorporate them into the system and strengthen constraints. This is also the fundamental background for the FDIC’s beginning to formulate rules for bank stablecoins.
The new regulations from the FDIC are not merely permissions; they set clear compliance boundaries for banks regarding stablecoins. This approach reduces systemic risk on one hand while leaving room for innovation on the other.
For the market, regulatory certainty itself is a positive.
Compared to crypto-native stablecoins, the advantage of bank stablecoins is:
However, in terms of decentralization and openness, bank stablecoins may be relatively conservative.
The current stablecoin prices have not shown significant fluctuations due to regulatory changes, as their core function remains value anchoring rather than being a speculative asset.
Real change is reflected in the use cases and credit structure, not in the price curve.
Bank stablecoins could reshape the payment, settlement, and clearing systems, especially in cross-border operations. This is also an important reason why regulators are willing to promote their compliance.
Despite the clear prospects, technical integration, compliance costs, and inter-agency collaboration remain challenges. However, from a long-term trend perspective, stablecoins are becoming part of the digital financial infrastructure.











