GENIUS Act Ready Or Not? BitGo Says Here Are The 5 Fixes For Successful Rollout

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-28Last updated on 2026-04-28

Following the US Treasury Department and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) proposal rules for the GENIUS Act—the country’s first stablecoin bill—Bitcoin (BTC) custodian BitGo has submitted its formal comments to the OCC.

BitGo Pushes OCC On GENIUS Act Changes

In a social media post on Monday, BitGo called the GENIUS Act a landmark, but emphasized that landmark bills still need careful implementation to succeed.

The company argued that several parts of the OCC’s proposed rules would benefit from adjustments, listing five areas in which it believes the draft approach needs refinement.

First, BitGo said the rules should recognize that banks already operate a structure for co-branded financial products under a single legal entity.

In its comments, the firm argued that forcing a separate legal entity for every brand would create additional compliance burdens, while not necessarily improving consumer protections.

Second, BitGo said the interest prohibition in the GENIUS Act needs clearer safe harbors. While the law is designed to prevent stablecoins from paying interest, BitGo argued that the OCC’s current proposed rules could unintentionally sweep in arrangements that are not really about yield.

BitGo is therefore asking for explicit safe harbors, a 30-day review timeline, and clear appeal rights so that routine commercial programs are not caught up in interpretations that regulators did not intend.

Stablecoin Oversight Concerns

Third, the Bitcoin custodian pushed back on the proposed reserve concentration limit, arguing that the rule should not require reserves to be placed in “riskier” banking institutions.

Under the OCC’s draft approach, a 40% single-institution concentration limit would apply equally to Federal Reserve (Fed) Banks and to Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs), which BitGo described as among the safest counterparties in the US financial system.

BitGo warned that exempting Fed accounts and G-SIBs from the cap entirely would better align with risk reduction, contending that forcing major issuers to shift reserves into smaller regional banks would increase risk rather than lower it.

Fourth, the company said the proposed automatic redemption freeze mechanism in the GENIUS Act framework could actually trigger the kind of market stress it is meant to prevent.

Under the OCC’s proposal, if an issuer receives redemption requests that exceed 10% of outstanding issuance within 24 hours, the issuer would face an automatic seven-day freeze, even if it already has sufficient liquidity to meet redemption demand within the normal timeframe.

BitGo argued that, for a fully liquid issuer capable of satisfying redemption requests on schedule, the freeze would be unnecessary and could manufacture panic in situations where the issuer could have handled redemptions without disruption.

Fifth, BitGo said a proposed reporting requirement about identifying stablecoin holders on public blockchains is not technically feasible in a way that would satisfy regulatory goals without creating additional enforcement risk.

The OCC’s GENIUS Act proposal includes weekly reporting on the top 100 holders and traders, and BitGo argued that permissionless networks use pseudonymous wallet addresses by design.

BitGo said compliance would likely force issuers to provide speculative, probabilistic estimates, which could mislead regulators and expose companies to liability for errors outside their control. In the company’s view, the requirement should be limited to KYC-onboarded customers only.

The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap drop to $2.54 trillion on Monday. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Reads

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手6h ago

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手6h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit9h ago

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit9h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手10h ago

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手10h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit11h ago

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit11h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片