US Stablecoin and Crypto Market Structure Bills: Where Congress Stands and Why It Matters

US Congress spent 2023 and 2024 debating two bills that between them would reshape crypto’s legal status: one focused on stablecoins, one on the broader question of whether tokens are securities or commodities. Both stalled repeatedly. Here is where things stand and why it matters.

Why legislation has been so difficult

The core dispute in US crypto regulation is jurisdictional. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) claims authority over most crypto assets as unregistered securities. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) claims bitcoin and ether are commodities within its remit. Courts have produced conflicting readings on specific tokens — a federal court found that XRP sold to retail buyers was not a security; another found that other tokens were. The result is regulatory uncertainty for the industry and enforcement risk for companies operating in the US.

Congress has been working on two bills that would resolve parts of this uncertainty by statute. Neither has yet passed. The stalemate reflects both genuine policy disagreement and the difficulty of moving technical financial legislation through a divided legislature. Our regulation section is tracking both bills in real time as amendments and votes occur.

The stablecoin bill: GENIUS Act and its predecessors

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, introduced in the Senate in early 2025 and building on earlier drafts including the Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act, would create a federal licensing framework for stablecoin issuers. Key provisions in various versions have included: a requirement that payment stablecoins be backed one-to-one by cash or short-term Treasuries; a ban on algorithmic stablecoins not backed by real assets; a choice between federal licensing through the OCC and state-level licensing subject to federal standards; and anti-money-laundering requirements consistent with existing bank-secrecy rules.

The political sticking point has been the question of whether large technology companies — specifically non-bank entities with very large customer bases — should be allowed to issue federally licensed stablecoins. Some legislators have pushed for restrictions preventing corporate giants from entering stablecoin issuance. Others argue that restricting issuers undermines the goal of US dollar dominance in digital payments.

The stablecoin question matters beyond the US. The dollar-denominated stablecoin market — dominated by Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC — represents the primary mechanism through which US dollar liquidity moves through global crypto markets. A US licensing framework could either cement that dominance or, if poorly designed, push activity to non-US issuers. See our USDC and USDT data pages for the current market cap and circulation figures for the two largest stablecoins.

The market structure bill: FIT21 and its status

The Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) passed the US House of Representatives in May 2024 with bipartisan support, a notable achievement given the partisan divide on most financial regulation. The bill proposes a framework for determining whether a digital asset is a commodity (regulated by the CFTC) or a security (regulated by the SEC), using a test based partly on the degree of decentralisation of the underlying network.

Under FIT21 as passed by the House, a digital asset associated with a sufficiently decentralised blockchain — one where no single entity controls more than 20 per cent and where the underlying network is functional for its intended purpose — would be classified as a commodity. Assets not meeting decentralisation thresholds would remain securities. The bill passed the House 279-136, with 71 Democrats joining Republicans.

The bill’s Senate path and White House position have been less clear. The Biden administration issued a statement of administration policy opposing FIT21 as passed, citing concerns about consumer protection and regulatory gaps. The Trump administration, taking office in January 2025, signalled a more favourable posture toward crypto legislation generally, which changed the political context considerably. For the primary legislative text, the bill is tracked at Congress.gov.

SEC enforcement: the record and its limits

Absent legislation, the SEC under Gary Gensler pursued an enforcement-led approach, filing actions against major exchanges including Coinbase and Binance, and against dozens of token issuers. The theory in most cases is that the relevant tokens were unregistered securities. Courts have split on the question: the Ripple XRP decision rejected the SEC’s theory as to secondary market sales; other courts have upheld SEC positions.

The limits of enforcement-led regulation are visible in the outcomes: cases take years to resolve, companies operate in uncertainty in the interim, and some activity has moved offshore to avoid US jurisdiction. Industry groups have argued this amounts to “regulation by enforcement” that fails to provide clear rules while still imposing significant compliance costs.

The change in SEC leadership following the 2024 US election has shifted the tone: Paul Atkins, confirmed as SEC chair in 2025, has signalled a more accommodating stance toward crypto. Several high-profile enforcement cases were dropped or settled. Whether legislative action follows the change in enforcement philosophy remains to be seen. Our regulation coverage tracks both legislative and enforcement developments.

Why both bills matter for non-US markets

US regulatory outcomes shape global markets for two reasons. First, the US dollar is the primary pricing unit for global crypto markets, so rules governing USD-pegged stablecoins have worldwide implications. Second, US-listed companies and US-regulated exchanges are the dominant onramps for institutional capital. When those companies operate under legal uncertainty, institutional capital deployment is cautious. Clarity — even unfavourable clarity — allows capital to calibrate.

The EU’s MiCA (see our MiCA explainer) has given European companies a head start in regulatory clarity that the US has not yet matched. Some argue this will attract crypto business to Europe; others argue that US market size means companies will wait for US clarity and operate in both markets.

Frequently asked questions

Has the US passed a comprehensive crypto law?

As of mid-2025, no comprehensive federal crypto law has passed. FIT21 passed the House in May 2024 but had not cleared the Senate. The GENIUS Act stablecoin bill was advancing in Senate committee but had not passed into law.

What does FIT21 say about which tokens are securities?

FIT21 proposes a test based on decentralisation: if the underlying blockchain is sufficiently decentralised (no single entity controls more than 20 per cent) and functional, the associated token is treated as a commodity under CFTC jurisdiction rather than a security under SEC jurisdiction.

What is the GENIUS Act?

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act would create a federal licensing framework for payment stablecoin issuers, requiring one-to-one backing by cash or short-term Treasuries and imposing AML obligations consistent with bank rules.

What changed under the new SEC leadership in 2025?

Paul Atkins replaced Gary Gensler as SEC chair. The new leadership dropped or settled several high-profile enforcement cases and signalled a more accommodating posture toward crypto firms. Legislative action is a separate question from enforcement posture and depends on Congress.

Sources

• Congress.gov — FIT21 Full Text and Status
• SEC — Crypto Enforcement Actions
• EUR-Lex — MiCA Regulation for Comparison