---
type: source
title: "GENIUS Act Stablecoin Legislation: Bank Concentration and Reserve Custody Analysis (Brookings)"
author: "Nellie Liang, Brookings Institution"
url: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/stablecoins-issues-for-regulators-as-they-implement-genius-act/
date: 2025-11-01
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-04-11
priority: high
tags: [genius-act, stablecoins, bank-entrenchment, programmable-money, regulation]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

The GENIUS Act (enacted July 18, 2025) establishes a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Key structural findings relevant to bank intermediary entrenchment:

**Reserve custody dependency:** Reserve assets must be held at entities subject to federal or state banking regulator oversight. Nonbank stablecoin issuers cannot self-custody reserves outside the banking system.

**Nonbank path exists but is constrained:** No Federal Reserve membership is required for nonbank issuers. OCC direct approval pathway (Section 5) exists for non-bank "Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers." Circle, Paxos, and three others received OCC conditional national trust bank charters in December 2025.

**Bank subsidiaries face lighter regulatory touch** through existing primary regulators (FDIC, OCC, Fed) without new application — a process asymmetry compared to nonbanks.

**Market concentration:** Brookings explicitly predicts "there will be only a few stablecoin issuers in a concentrated market" due to payment network effects, regardless of licensing competition.

**Big Tech restriction:** Publicly-traded non-financial companies (Apple, Google, Amazon) are effectively barred without unanimous Stablecoin Certification Review Committee vote. Privately-held non-financial companies face no equivalent restriction — a notable asymmetry.

**Fed "skinny" master accounts:** Fed is separately considering capped, non-interest-bearing master accounts for OCC-chartered stablecoin issuers, excluding discount window access.

**Freeze/seize requirement (separate finding via OCC NPRM):** All stablecoin issuers must maintain technological capability to freeze and seize stablecoins in compliance with lawful orders. Direct conflict with fully autonomous smart contract payment rails.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** This is the primary empirical test of the Belief #1 disconfirmation scenario: does stablecoin legislation lock in bank intermediaries? The answer is nuanced — not full entrenchment, but real custodial banking dependency and control surface requirements.

**What surprised me:** The freeze/seize capability requirement was not expected — it creates a mandatory backdoor into programmable payment infrastructure that directly conflicts with the trust-minimization premise of the programmable coordination attractor state.

**What I expected but didn't find:** A clear bank-charter requirement for all stablecoin issuers. The law is more permissive than expected — nonbank path is real — but the reserve custody dependency creates indirect banking system lock-in.

**KB connections:**
- Belief #1 (capital allocation is civilizational infrastructure) — partial disconfirmation on the payment settlement layer
- `internet-finance-is-an-industry-transition-from-traditional-finance` — the attractor state thesis faces a settlement-layer constraint
- `blockchain-coordination-attractor-state` — programmable trust infrastructure now has a compliance control surface requirement

**Extraction hints:**
- CLAIM: "GENIUS Act freeze/seize requirement creates mandatory control surface that conflicts with autonomous smart contract payment coordination"
- CLAIM: "GENIUS Act reserve custody rules create indirect banking system dependency for nonbank stablecoin issuers without requiring bank charter"
- Possible belief scope qualifier for Belief #1: payment layer vs. information/governance layer distinction

## Curator Notes

PRIMARY CONNECTION: `internet-finance-is-an-industry-transition-from-traditional-finance-where-the-attractor-state-replaces-intermediaries-with-programmable-coordination-and-market-tested-governance`
WHY ARCHIVED: Tests the primary disconfirmation scenario for Belief #1 — bank entrenchment via stablecoin regulation
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on the freeze/seize control surface requirement and reserve custody dependency as the two specific mechanisms creating banking system lock-in, not the charter requirement (which does not exist)
