Regulatory Radar #3

The Journey of the GENIUS Act: A Timeline

This timeline-driven feature traces the GENIUS Act -Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act - from its early conceptualization in February 2025 through its swift bipartisan progress in both chambers of Congress, culminating in Senate approval in just over four months. 

With final passage expected before the August 2025 recess, the focus will soon shift to implementation—anticipated throughout 2026 and 2027 via rulemaking from key federal agencies including the Federal Reserve, OCC, SEC, and FinCEN.

The GENIUS Act represents the culmination of years of debate, shaped by numerous legislative efforts aimed at stablecoin oversight.

As the U.S. accelerates its response to digital asset regulation, it stands at a pivotal moment—poised to catch up with the EU’s more mature MiCA framework.

A (not so) brief history of US stablecoin legislation

The House of Representatives and the Senate have been pro-active in formulating draft laws - or bills - to create a dedicated and comprehensive US regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. 

Since 2017, both the Republican and Democratic parties have proposed a plethora of legislation relating directly or indirectly to stablecoins, and payment stablecoins in particular. 

The first wave of legislative proposals for a regulatory framework for stablecoins date back to 2019, in reaction to the emergence of Facebook’s Diem (ex - Libra) project. However, legislative momentum really began to pick up in 2022 with a second wave of legislation that aimed to define payment stablecoins, the legal pathways to issuing payment stablecoins as well as regulatory oversight, reserve requirements, etc.

First wave of U.S. Stablecoin Regulations

Second Wave of U.S. Stablecoin Regulations

A Step-by-Step Timeline of the GENIUS Act

Stage 1: Conception and Drafting

Stage 2: Introduction and Committee Review

Stage 3: Floor Debate and Vote

Floor Debate

Senate Consideration and Bipartisan Compromise

Final Vote (Senate)

Next Steps : from House Review to Implementation

From House Review to Official Publication

Entry into Force & Implementation

Key Timing Observations: EU vs. USA

Given the breakneck speed at which the GENIUS Act has passed the Senate, despite political frictions, it is interesting to compare the regulatory trajectories of the EU’s pioneering MiCA Regulation and the U.S. GENIUS Act:

• Where do the MiCA and GENIUS Act timelines converge—if at all?
• What can expect moving forward - which imperatives are likely to shape these distinctive trajectories?

Here are some quick takeaways. 

The EU has already operationalized a leading licensing framework, placing it ahead in terms of legal certainty and supervisory action - the Market in Crypto Assets Regulation - a comprehensive digital asset framework, covering stablecoins, utility tokens, and crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). 

MiCA was introduced in September 2020 and came into full legal effect in June 2023, with stablecoin provisions applicable from June 30, 2024, and broader rules from December 30, 2024. 

MiCA took nearly 3 years from the introduction of the proposal to full applicability but this reflects: 

• the EU’s methodical regulatory sequencing, shaped by pan-European consensus-building across EU institutions and 27 EU Member States. 

• The scope of MiCA which covers all crypto-assets and crypto-asset service providers

If passed by August 2025, the GENIUS Act could be passed in only 6 to 7 months, which is by no means a small accomplishment —driven by political urgency, industry support, and a Republican led framing of the bill as a way of protecting the US dollar’s dominance (dollar-centric geopolitical strategy). 

Moving forward, stakeholders looking at US developments should monitor:

• The House reconciliation process for the GENIUS Act and its coordination with the STABLE Act. The House review could escalate the debate over scope, ethics, and Big Tech carveouts—potentially merging with broader frameworks like the CLARITY Act.
  
  
• Political frictions could  very well intensify as Trump’s personal crypto interests remain unchecked, attracting further pro-consumer amendments or opposition.
  
  
• The actual activation timeline of U.S. regulatory implementation :  the GENIUS Act will rely heavily on subsequent rulemaking by federal agencies, with effective implementation deferred up to 18 months after enactment (i.e., late 2026 or early 2027). 

• Closely linked to the previous point, the 2026 midterms may see renewed debate, shaped by campaign financing from crypto PACs and additional scrutiny over amendments (like anti-bailout measures or privacy protections).

As this series continues, we’ll unpack how these two landmark regulatory frameworks align or diverge on crucial issues such as licensing, reserve requirements, consumer protections, and oversight mechanisms.

🧭 Stay tuned for our next edition, where we will delve deeper into the MiCA-GENIUS comparison and what it means for global crypto regulation and innovation!

Welcome to the first edition of Regulatory Radar—a space for short, sharp insights into the rules, tools, and trends shaping financial regulation!

We’re starting with a timely topic: the no-action letter—a somewhat obscure but important regulatory instrument used by European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs). On 10 June 2025, the European Banking Authority (EBA) issued a no-action letter addressing the interaction between PSD2 and MiCA—marking the first time this tool has been used to navigate the complex overlap between legacy payments regulation and Europe’s new crypto framework.

But what exactly is a no-action letter in the EU context? Who can issue one? What’s its legal weight? And why should market participants and policymakers alike pay attention?

Let’s take a closer look.

‍Which EU supervisory authorities can issue a no-action letter? 

Following the 2019 ESA Reform Regulation, all European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) were given the authority to issue no-action letters: 

What is the legal basis of a no-action letter? 

The legal basis of a no-action letter differs across the European Supervisory Authorities: 

• European Banking Authority (EBA): Article 9c of EBA’s founding regulation - Regulation (EU) 1093/2010 - grants the EBA the authority to expeditiously issue no-action letters 
• European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA): Article 9a of ESMA’s founding regulation - Regulation (EU) 1095/2010 - grants the ESMA the authority to expeditiously issue no-action letters. 
• European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA): Article 9a of EIOPA’s founding regulation - Regulation (EU) 1094/2010- grants the EIOPA the authority to expeditiously issue no-action letters. 

The EBA, ESMA and EIOPA may equally participate in joint ESA no-action letters as was the case in December 2023 on EMIR Margin Requirements. 

Specifically, on essentially the same terms, the EBA, ESMA, and EIOPA may issue a no-action letter in the following three circumstances: 

1. Provisions contained in a relevant EU Legislative act may directly conflict with another relevant EU legislative act.
2. The absence of delegated or implementing acts that complement or specify a legislative act raises legitimate doubts concerning the legal consequences from the legislative act or its proper application.
3. The absence of EBA guidelines or recommendations would raise practical difficulties concerning the application of the relevant legislative act. 

What is the aim of an ESA no-action letter? 

In the European Union, no-action letters are not addressed to individual firms, but rather address an issue affecting the market as a whole. The pattern across ESAs suggests that only exceptional, systemic regulatory conflicts, as opposed to firm-specific or minor compliance issues, have triggered the issuance of no-action letters. 

No-action letters issued by ESAs do not change EU law but they provide interim guidance to regulators and market participants on how to handle problematic provisions until a more permanent solution is in place. 

Usually addressed primarily to all national regulators in the EU, this interim guidance may provide :

1. ‍Short-term non-supervisory or non-enforcement guidance : 
   

• A no-action letter may state that no supervisory or enforcement actions should be taken against firms for non-compliance with specified provisions, for a limited time or until certain conditions are met. 
• A no-action letter may outline supervisory expectations during an interim period when the timing of implementation or the scope of two regulatory regimes are misaligned.

2. ‍Long-Term legislative action : 

• ESAs may issue a public opinion to the European Commission (EC) on any action it considers appropriate, in the form of a new legislative proposal or a proposal for a new delegated or implementing act, and on the urgency that, in the Authority’s judgment, is attached to the issue.
• ESAs may equally evaluate as soon as possible the need to adopt further relevant guidelines or recommendations that do not warrant further legislative action. 
• Each no-action letter issued by ESAs so far has been accompanied by outreach to the European Commission. 

‍Is a no-action letter legally binding? 

A no-action letter is delivered as an opinion (soft-law) and is therefore not legally binding on relevant National Competent Authorities (NCAs) or firms operating in the EU. The ESAs’ respective Founding Regulations do not grant ESA’s authority the power to disapply or suspend the law. 

However, a no-action letter constitutes an important precedent - NCAs have strong incentives to follow the guidance to maintain a level-playing field and avoid fragmentation.