The cryptocurrency movement, once heralded as a disruptive force against traditional finance, has increasingly aligned itself with regulatory frameworks and political consensus, evolving into what some describe as a ‘tamed revolution.’ This article explores the paradoxical journey of crypto from its anti-establishment roots to its current state of seeking regulatory approval.
In 2025, the rebellious ethos of cryptocurrency has shifted dramatically, with key players now applying for licenses from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The recently enacted GENIUS Act has brought regulatory clarity to stablecoins, specifying issuance rules, oversight mechanisms, and operational requirements. While proponents celebrate this as a milestone for mainstream adoption, critics question whether the original vision of decentralized finance has been compromised.
The legislation introduces stringent conditions for stablecoin issuers, including OCC approval, 1:1 U.S. Treasury reserves, monthly certified disclosures, and mandatory token-freezing capabilities upon regulatory request. Notably, issuers are prohibited from paying interest—a measure seen as protective of traditional banks.
This regulatory framework has created a paradox: while blockchain technology enables decentralized transactions, stablecoins now require centralized intermediaries like licensed issuers and partnering banks (e.g., JPMorgan). The system resembles traditional finance with improved user experience but added compliance burdens.
Major stablecoin issuers like Circle benefit from this transition, while entities such as Tether face existential decisions regarding transparency and compliance. The Act also includes ‘Libra clauses’ preventing tech giants from issuing stablecoins without federal approval and full U.S. government debt backing.
Economically, stablecoins offer transaction cost savings (fractions of traditional card fees), attracting interest from major retailers. However, concerns emerge about systemic risks: large-scale stablecoin adoption could link U.S. Treasury demand to volatile crypto markets, potentially destabilizing government borrowing costs during redemption surges.
This evolution reflects crypto’s broader transition from ‘anarchist money’ to an institutional asset class. What began as peer-to-peer electronic cash now operates under federal laws requiring highly regulated intermediaries—complete with centralized ‘kill switches’ for supposedly decentralized currencies.
The GENIUS Act effectively co-opts cryptocurrency innovation into dollar hegemony, with each stablecoin issuance increasing global demand for U.S. Treasuries. While this strengthens dollar dominance, it raises philosophical questions about whether crypto has become the ultimate dollar export mechanism rather than a genuine alternative financial system.
Banks—once crypto’s purported targets—are now positioning themselves as primary stablecoin issuers, with JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Citigroup reportedly developing services. This unexpected outcome suggests that the cryptocurrency revolution may not have destroyed traditional finance, but rather become absorbed by it—a development some might ironically call ‘genius.’
