Picture this—not schmoozing with a Gitmo pariah, but a world in which sending money across borders is as easy as sending an email. No mile-long lines at banks, no exorbitant fees, no waiting three days for the transaction to clear. That future could be powered by stablecoins. What if the same regulations meant to protect us end up imprisoning that potential? That’s the question we should all be asking ourselves as we consider the GENIUS Act and its 122 crazy amendments.

Are We Over-Regulating Before We Innovate?

Consider the first days of the world wide web. Could you picture passing social media regulation back when everyone was still just fiddling around with GeoCities? Probably not. The GENIUS Act, well-intentioned as it might be, presents a huge danger. It may kill nascent technology with excessive red tape, not allowing it to blossom on its own merits. After all, we’re discussing the future of finance.

Indeed, the entire tech sector — led by the likes of Apple, Google and Meta — is figuring out how stablecoins can remake payments. Picture this—spending your stablecoin on your morning coffee, seamlessly, instantaneously, and without high credit card transaction fees. That's a future worth fighting for. So far we have 122 amendments, digging deep into the weeds of technical compliance and financial architecture considerations. Or are we putting roadblocks along the way that we don’t need to be putting?

Trojan Horse or Honest Protection?

The sheer number of amendments raises a serious question: Are we dealing with genuine attempts to safeguard the financial system, or is this a Trojan Horse, packed with provisions that serve other agendas? The Durbin-Marshall amendment would only address the exorbitant credit card interchange fees. This turf war obscures the real stakes in an overall stablecoin regulatory regime. Is this the right vehicle to continue that fight?

How about the Hawley-Sanders amendment to impose price controls on credit cards, specifically capping APR at 10%? Putting a stop to predatory lending practices is a major priority. To attach it to a stablecoin bill is a last-ditch effort to avoid the normal legislative process that warrants concern. This almost makes it feel like someone is trying to sneak one past us.

Who Really Benefits From This Bill?

Here’s where we really need to connect the dots. Who really stands to gain from a heavily regulated stablecoin market? Certainly not the average person. Complicated regulations benefit the incumbents – the too-big-to-fail big banks and financial institutions that already own the entire financial ecosystem. Ironically, these are the same institutions that are already pursuing their own stablecoin projects!

Banks like JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup are all dipping their toes in the stablecoin waters. A burdensome regulatory landscape can beget unintended barriers to entry. This state of affairs lets the incumbents continue to monopolize the space and keep out the smaller, more nimble and disruptive entrants. So then, is this really about protecting consumers, or is this about protecting the status quo?

Consider this: stablecoins have the potential to empower the unbanked and underbanked, providing them with access to financial services they've long been denied. Third, stablecoins can help reduce the cost of transactions and improve access. This levels the playing field, allowing more people to participate in the digital economy. Or worse yet, what if the GENIUS Act, with its 122 amendments, accidentally slams the door shut on these opportunities?

Rohit Chopra, the Director of the CFPB, has been warning about the dangers of merging stablecoins with the traditional financial sector. These are all legitimate concerns, but the solution isn’t to suppress innovation. It’s to ensure that we develop a regulatory framework that encourages growth and innovation while protecting consumers and the public from unnecessary harm.

Let's be clear: regulation is necessary. We need to make sure that stablecoins are well-capitalized. Let’s continue to encourage transparency and prevent their use in illicit activities. We must strike a balance. We have to foster a regulatory environment that encourages innovation. In so doing, we’ll encourage innovation and provide stablecoins with the opportunity to realize their potential. The future of climate financing hangs in the balance.

The Senate’s vote on the GENIUS Act, anticipated in the next few weeks, represents a critical juncture. We are going to need our elected officials to be able to combat the consequences of these 122 amendments. Are they really watching out for us, or are they really strangling the same innovation that could transform our financial system for the better? Together, let’s call them to account and demand answers! Together we can build a future where finance is more accessible, efficient, and empowering to all.