Opinion | The Genius Act Will Bring Economic Chaos \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Opinion | The Genius Act Will Bring Economic Chaos www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/genius-act-stablecoin-crypto.html

1063 sats \ 19 comments \ @south_korea_ln 11h econ

What would unleash this chaos is a piece of legislation known as the Genius Act. In its efforts to give crypto a patina of governmental authority and legitimacy, the Genius Act would give hundreds — perhaps even thousands — of American companies the ability to issue their own currencies. Imagine Walmart issuing a Walmartcoin, and Amazon doing the same with an Amazoncoin, enabling them to bypass the banking system and credit card networks.

I stumbled on this piece as I was wondering what all the fuss was about this genius act. Seems like Wall Street shenanigans, but that's what Bitcoin Twitter seems to love these days...

Side note: the em dash now even makes me question the use of AI in this kind of publications. AI really has ruined the em dash~~

view all related items

868 sats \ 7 replies \ @SimpleStacker 11h

So this was written by Barry Eichengreen, a fellow economist... and I'm fairly disappointed with the opening paragraph, since it's entirely reliant on A) a Hollywood stereotype of the wild west, and B) an anecdotal accounting of crypto kidnappings, with zero statistical evidence regarding the magnitude of the problem in either case.

Leaving that aside, I find his concerns about WalmartCoin and AmazonCoin to be unconvincing. We already have dozens of privately issued currencies, from Robux to Cowboy Credits. Moreover, how many millions of dollars of Amazon gift cards are floating around, redeemable only from Amazon? I read that Starbucks is actually one of the largest custodians of funds due to the number of credits people have in their Starbucks account, but Starbucks isn't regulated like a bank. So whatever his concerns about WalmartCoin and AmazoinCoin are, they seem to be already present with or without the Genius Act.

I will say, however, that he's right to be critical about the reliability and transparency of stablecoins as they currently exist. As far as I can tell, stablecoins like Tether have not demonstrated proof of reserves that we can sufficiently trust they are fully backed.

That being said, if such were the case--why would he be so critical of putting a regulatory framework around it? If we take what he says at face value, that the states with more highly regulated free-banking systems did better, then shouldn't we welcome a regulatory framework for stablecoin versus letting it persist in its status quo?

The piece just seems a bit off in terms of logical consistency.

38 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 6h

It's very hard to be logically consistent when emotions come into play.

Matt Levine for me is very logically consistent. Mostly because either he truly does not care or is able to fully detach his writing from his ideological convictions.

That's probably why @denlillaapan dissecting Matt's articles leads to interesting reads. Supercharged emotional and ideological conviction injected into cold, yet humorous, rational articles.

I guess when you're asked to write an opinion piece for the NYT, ideology matters.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

That's probably why @denlillaapan dissecting Matt's articles leads to interesting reads. Supercharged emotional and ideological conviction injected into cold, yet humorous, rational articles. good summary. Don't think I ever consciously considered why I love reading his stuff. Perhaps this is why?

He clearly thinks most crypto and bitcoin is shenanigans, but he's happy to engage it for thousands and thousands of words at a time, treating it fairly and/or accurately (but funny!)

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 5h

To be fair, most of recent mainstream Bitcoin has become quite shenanigany~~

thousands and thousands of words at a time

The amount of words he produces is impressive.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

how that guy stays interesting, day in and day out, for probs 3,000-5,000 words at a time, is insane. Aspirational af

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 5h

You said everything I wanted to and more

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

yeah, Eichengreen isn't always super impressive. You gotta read him selectively #921437

and yes, your Starbucks/Amazon observation is on point: #743123

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 6h

I will say, however, that he's right to be critical about the reliability and transparency of stablecoins as they currently exist. As far as I can tell, stablecoins like Tether have not demonstrated proof of reserves that we can sufficiently trust they are fully backed.

Umm....well this is exactly what this legislation stipulates: 1:1 reserve requirements.

It sounds fairly disingenuous to be against the legislation because "unbacked tether concern", when that is the exact remedy the legislation provides for.

TDS (Tether Derangement Syndrome) is a real thing....

123 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 6h

So I wanted to note that this Barry Eichengreen since at least 2017 has been a huge CBDC promoter calling it "the future." Since at least then he has done numerous op-eds really trashing the crypto community.

In a 2021 article he did titled "Digital Currencies—More than a Passing Fad?" he stated, "Plain-vanilla cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin lack the essential attributes of money and are likely to remain no more than niche investment products."

Given his track record anything he says about crypto should be taken with a MASSIVE grain of salt and he and Sen. Warren and Rep. Sherman are all likely best friends in their hatred of crypto. He says this will make it a "Wild West" but what does that mean it is now?

698 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 10h

I found Arthur Hayes essay on this fascinating. He seems to have some knowledge of the topic. Interesting how he says Trump and family were debanked while Biden was in power so Trump is not so sympathetic to the banks.

https://cryptohayes.substack.com/p/assume-the-position

My own theory probably wrong is that you need to increase the efficiency of the payments channels and the legacy bankers are not doing that so stable coins are a way of forcing change...and increasing speed and efficiency of payments short of developing a CBDC...

Fuck the banks is all I can say with confidence, and if Trump is going to do this good on him.

81 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 10h

Arthur Hayes... always very entertaining reads. His predictions rarely come through, though~~

Didn't know, he even provides Korean translations: https://blog.naver.com/maelstromkorea/223902213120

107 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 9h

Wow, this one was actually very informative!

What these banks will certainly not do is partner with a third party in technological development or distribution of stablecoins. They will do all of this inhouse. In fact, the regulators might explicitly forbid it. It follows then that this distribution channel is closed to entrepreneurs building their own stablecoin technology. I don’t care how many Proofs of Concept a particular issuer claims to be conducting for a legacy bank. They will never lead to bank-wide adoption. Therefore, if you are an investor, run for the hills if a stablecoin issuer promoter claims that they will partner with a legacy bank to push their product out to market.

35 sats \ 0 replies \ @BlokchainB 8h

I rarely agree with you on topics but this one we have full agreement. Payments with legacy banks are terrible. ACH is slow and debit and credit cards have massive fees.

90 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 11h

that's what Bitcoin Twitter seems to love these days..

This time they are unknowingly celebrating something that will prove to be a killing blow for banking. but who'll benefit?

.....The fucking government....

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

HAHAH, we looooove the em dash over here. What's your beef??

16 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 5h

I was just telling myself, when reading #1009243, does @denlillaapan use AI, too? No, can't be!

I should be more generous and give people the benefit of the doubt... some intellectuals did use the em dash in the before AI times...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

almost never.

Sometimes I ask it to summarize things or write as if it were me, but then I still go over it manually and fiddle with stuff.

(and yes, people have used em dashes since forever)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder 2h

i remember in like 2017 or somethign a lot of the talk in the general crypto space was that companoes would be issuing their own coins etc

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @seashell 3h

If the concern is “chaos” from private currencies, then the real panic should’ve started when game companies, airlines, and coffee shops became de facto banks. Genius act just makes the shadow system more visible and that’s what really scares them.