Former Bank of China VP Warns US Stablecoin Law May Empower Banks Over Private Issuers

• GENIUS Act mandates full reserves in dollars or Treasuries for stablecoins, boosting US dollar demand.

• Prohibits interest payments to holders and enforces strict AML compliance for issuers.

• Over 99% of global stablecoins are dollar-denominated, posing challenges to monetary sovereignty in other nations, with 24/7 trading complicating oversight.

Discover how US stablecoin legislation via the GENIUS Act could disrupt the crypto sector by empowering banks over private issuers. Explore expert insights on global impacts and China’s response—read now for key analysis.

What is the GENIUS Act and its impact on stablecoins?

US stablecoin legislation, embodied in the GENIUS Act signed into law on July 18, establishes the first federal framework for regulating stablecoins in the United States. It requires issuers to hold reserves equal to the value of their tokens in US dollars or short-term Treasury securities, alongside monthly audits and rigorous anti-money laundering measures. This approach not only strengthens the dollar’s global role but also introduces provisions that prohibit interest payments to stablecoin holders, aiming to integrate these assets into the traditional financial system while mitigating risks.

How does the GENIUS Act potentially undermine private stablecoin issuers?

Former Bank of China vice president Wang Yongli, in a detailed WeChat analysis, warns that the GENIUS Act could inadvertently dismantle the stablecoin industry by allowing traditional banks to dominate through tokenized deposit products. He argues that once regulated, banks will fully engage, promoting on-chain fiat operations that directly compete with and replace private stablecoins as bridges between crypto and real-world finance. This shift, supported by the law’s compliance protections, may empower established institutions, leaving crypto firms struggling to compete, as banks leverage their infrastructure for seamless tokenization.

Frequently Asked Questions

What risks do dollar-denominated stablecoins pose to other countries’ economies?

Dollar-backed stablecoins, controlling over 99% of the global market, facilitate 24-hour trading that evades traditional oversight, enabling anonymous high-frequency flows. This threatens monetary sovereignty, as seen in challenges to KYC, AML, and capital controls, with real cases of money laundering and illegal transfers highlighting risks to foreign exchange management and economic stability in nations like China.

Why has China banned stablecoins instead of developing its own?

China’s ban on stablecoins prioritizes national security over efficiency gains, given the dominance of US firms in the market. Developing an RMB stablecoin would likely subordinate it to dollar tokens without challenging their status, while exposing the country to uncontrollable global flows that undermine regulatory frameworks like AML and cross-border controls, as Wang Yongli explains in his assessment.

Key Takeaways

• Regulatory Boost for the Dollar: The GENIUS Act increases demand for US dollars and Treasuries, enhancing America’s financial influence and generating profits for involved parties.
• Bank Dominance Risk: Traditional institutions could use the law to tokenize deposits, sidelining private stablecoin issuers and reshaping the crypto landscape.
• Global Sovereignty Concerns: Dollar stablecoins pose threats to other economies’ autonomy; nations should maintain strict controls to protect against wealth extraction and illicit activities.

Conclusion

The GENIUS Act represents a pivotal step in US stablecoin legislation, fortifying the dollar’s position while imposing safeguards on issuers. However, as Wang Yongli critiques, it may empower banks to eclipse private innovators, and its dollar-centric model challenges global monetary sovereignty, echoing concerns from ECB President Christine Lagarde on euro threats. As the crypto ecosystem evolves under this framework, stakeholders worldwide must navigate these dynamics carefully, balancing innovation with robust oversight to safeguard economic interests.

Wang Yongli’s analysis underscores the dual-edged nature of the GENIUS Act: while it bolsters US financial hegemony by mandating reserves and compliance, it inadvertently paves the way for traditional banks to integrate tokenized assets, potentially displacing agile private stablecoin providers. This legislation, effective since its signing, requires issuers to back tokens fully with dollars or Treasuries, undergo monthly audits, and adhere to stringent anti-money laundering protocols—measures designed to prevent systemic risks but which Wang views as enabling a bank-led takeover.

In his WeChat post, Wang highlights how such US stablecoin legislation has amplified dollar demand, inadvertently strengthening its international stature and yielding substantial gains for proponents in the cryptocurrency space, including political figures. Yet, this comes at a cost: heightened challenges in monitoring dollar circulation globally and stabilizing the US financial system itself. The act’s provisions, by legitimizing crypto assets, invite full participation from banks, which can then tokenize customer deposits on-chain, rendering private stablecoins obsolete as intermediaries.

Beyond the US, Wang addresses the broader implications for jurisdictions like China, where stablecoins are outright banned. He explains that competing with dollar-dominated tokens—holding over 99% market share—would be futile and risky. An RMB stablecoin might merely serve as a feeder to US systems, exacerbating vulnerabilities from round-the-clock, anonymous trading that complicates compliance with know-your-customer (KYC), anti-money laundering (AML), and foreign transaction controls (FTC). Real-world incidents of fraud, laundering, and illicit fund movements validate these concerns, directly impacting China’s foreign exchange, taxation, and capital flow mechanisms.

Wang emphasizes the US’s demonstrated prowess in freezing crypto accounts and pursuing legal action against platforms, a leverage unavailable to China in dollar-centric ecosystems. Thus, Beijing’s strategy focuses on vigilance and prohibition to preserve security, eschewing the allure of efficiency for unmonitored global flows. This stance aligns with Wang’s call for prioritizing sovereignty over speculative gains in crypto trading.

Internationally, similar apprehensions resonate. Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, has advocated for elevating the euro’s global role amid stablecoin proliferation. ECB analyses reveal that dollar-linked tokens erode Europe’s monetary independence, complicating policy execution and economic control. Wang echoes this, portraying the GENIUS Act as a self-serving measure that prioritizes American interests, potentially at the world’s expense, by weaponizing stablecoins for global wealth capture.

The former executive’s insights, drawn from his tenure as the first mainland Chinese SWIFT board member, lend authoritative weight to the discourse. His critique illuminates how US stablecoin legislation might foster innovation in tokenized finance while sowing seeds of disruption for private issuers and non-US economies. As regulations mature, the interplay between banks, crypto firms, and sovereign policies will define the stablecoin era’s trajectory.

Key provisions of the GENIUS Act include bans on interest payments to holders, aiming to delineate stablecoins from traditional savings products and curb yield-chasing behaviors. This, combined with reserve requirements, positions stablecoins as reliable payment tools rather than investment vehicles, though it limits their appeal compared to bank offerings. Monthly attestations ensure transparency, but Wang warns that such protections will accelerate institutional adoption, tilting the competitive field.

From a global perspective, the act’s dollar reinforcement—through heightened Treasury demand—solidifies US economic leverage. Wang notes the profits accrued to cryptocurrency advocates, suggesting intertwined political and financial incentives. Yet, the “harvesting” of global wealth via stablecoin transactions raises alarms, as these assets enable seamless, oversight-resistant transfers that challenge national controls.

In advocating for China’s approach, Wang delineates the perils of emulation: anonymous, high-velocity flows defy coordinated regulation, fostering illicit activities. The US’s enforcement capabilities further underscore asymmetries, compelling stricter domestic measures. Lagarde’s parallel push for euro strengthening reflects a collective wariness of dollar hegemony in digital assets.

Ultimately, the GENIUS Act’s legacy hinges on whether it nurtures a balanced ecosystem or entrenches traditional finance’s dominance. Wang’s analysis serves as a cautionary blueprint, urging policymakers to weigh innovation against sovereignty in the evolving landscape of US stablecoin legislation.