The Senate passed the GENIUS Act for stablecoins last week, but significant work remains before it becomes law. The House has a different bill, the STABLE Act, with notable differences that must be reconciled. State banking regulators have raised strong objections to a provision in the GENIUS Act that would allow state banks to operate nationwide without authorization from host states or a federal regulator.
The controversial clause permits a state bank with a regulated stablecoin subsidiary to provide money transmitter and custodial services in any other state. While host states can impose consumer protection laws, they cannot require the usual authorization and oversight typically needed for out-of-state banking operations.
The Conference of State Bank Supervisors welcomed some changes in the GENIUS Act but remains adamantly opposed to this particular provision. In a statement, CSBS said:
“Critical changes must be made during House consideration of the legislation to prevent unintended consequences and further mitigate financial stability risks. CSBS remains concerned with the dramatic and unsupported expansion of the authority of uninsured banks to conduct money transmission or custody activities nationwide without the approval or oversight of host state supervisors (Sec. 16(d)).”
The National Conference of State Legislatures expressed similar concerns in early June, stating:
“We urge you to oppose Section 16(d) and support state authority to regulate financial services in a manner that reflects local conditions, priorities and risk tolerances. Preserving the dual banking system and respecting state autonomy is essential to the safety, soundness and diversity of our nation’s financial sector.”
Evolution of nationwide authorization
Section 16 addresses several issues beyond stablecoins, including preventing a recurrence of the SEC’s SAB 121, which forced crypto assets held in custody onto balance sheets. However, the nationwide authorization subsection was added after the legislation cleared the Senate Banking Committee, with two significant modifications since then.
Originally, the provision applied only to special bank charters like Wyoming’s Special Purpose Depository Institutions or Connecticut’s Innovation Banks. Examples include crypto-focused Custodia Bank and crypto exchange Kraken in Wyoming, plus traditional finance player Fnality US in Connecticut. Recently the scope was expanded to cover most state chartered banks with stablecoin subsidiaries, possibly due to concerns about competitive advantages.
Simultaneously, the clause was substantially tightened. The initial version allowed state chartered banks to provide money transmission and custody services nationwide for any type of asset, which would include cryptocurrencies. Now these activities can only be conducted by the stablecoin subsidiary, and while Section 16(d) doesn’t explicitly limit services to stablecoins, the GENIUS Act currently restricts issuers to stablecoin related activities.
However, the House STABLE Act takes a more permissive approach, allowing regulators to decide which non-stablecoin activities are permitted. If the House version prevails in reconciliation, it could result in a significant expansion of allowed nationwide banking activities beyond stablecoins.
Is it that bad?
As originally drafted, the clause seemed overly permissive.
The amended clause makes sense for stablecoin issuers. They want to have a single regulator and be able to provide the stablecoin services throughout the United States. But it also leans into the perception outside of crypto that this is just another form of regulatory arbitrage.
The controversy over Section 16(d) reflects concerns about creating a regulatory gap that allows banks to operate interstate without the oversight typically required from either federal or state authorities. As the two Congressional chambers work toward reconciliation, lawmakers must decide whether stablecoin legislation should include provisions that effectively reduce traditional banking oversight requirements.
