As global demand for stablecoins rises, regulators are racing to define how these assets should be issued, backed, and managed. The European Union has enacted the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), while the United States has proposed two competing bills: the GENIUS Act in the Senate and the STABLE Act in the House.
For founders, fintech operators, and payment innovators evaluating where to launch, these frameworks present a strategic decision point. The choice of jurisdiction can influence go-to-market speed, regulatory risk, and scalability across regions.
In this article, we compare MiCA, the GENIUS Act, and the STABLE Act through a practical lens to help teams determine the most efficient and compliant launch strategy for their stablecoin project.
Dive deeper: Read our full MiCA breakdown or explore our comparisons of the GENIUS Act and STABLE Act to plan your regulatory strategy.
MiCA Stablecoin Rules: Passporting and Regulatory Clarity
MiCA is already in force across all 27 EU member states and defines rules for payment stablecoins, classified as either E-Money Tokens (EMTs) or Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs).
Under MiCA:
- EMTs must be backed 1:1 by high-quality liquid assets and pegged to a single fiat currency.
- ARTs are stablecoins backed by multiple currencies, assets, or commodities.
- Issuers must be legally incorporated in the EU and submit white papers to national regulators.
- Redemption at par is mandatory, and interest-bearing features are prohibited.
Founder Consideration: MiCA offers cross-border passporting, giving you access to the entire EU from a single license. But compliance requires upfront legal structuring, operational readiness, and ongoing reserve management.
GENIUS Act Compliance Benefits: State-Level Optionality and Flexibility
The GENIUS Act, a U.S. Senate bill, proposes a dual-path model that allows federally and state-chartered entities to issue payment stablecoins.
Key features:
- Full reserve backing (USD cash, deposits, or short-term Treasuries)
- Redemption rights and public disclosures
- No interest or yield-bearing features
- A state-federal pathway for licensing (e.g., a New York BitLicense would qualify)
Founder Consideration: If you already operate in a crypto-friendly U.S. state, the GENIUS Act’s framework could accelerate your launch without waiting for a federal charter. However, since this bill hasn’t passed, the lack of legal certainty could impact investor confidence and infrastructure planning.
STABLE Act Strategy Impact: Centralized Compliance, Higher Burden
The STABLE Act, introduced in the House, reflects a more centralized, federal-first approach to stablecoin oversight.
Highlights include:
- Stricter enforcement and civil penalties for unauthorized issuers
- Prioritization of consumer protections in insolvency
- Scrutiny of foreign-issued stablecoins
- No support for state-based licensing regimes
Founder Consideration: The STABLE Act may align better with federally regulated financial institutions, but it poses higher friction for early-stage issuers. Without a state-level option, legal and operational barriers could delay product timelines.
U.S. vs. EU Stablecoin Launch Comparison
| Feature | MiCA (EU) | GENIUS Act (U.S. Senate) | STABLE Act (U.S. House) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Enacted law | Proposed bill | Proposed bill |
| Jurisdiction | 27 EU member states | U.S. federal + state | U.S. federal only |
| Licensing Requirement | Required for EMTs/ARTs | Required for payment stablecoins | Required for payment stablecoins |
| Reserve Requirements | 1:1 backing, no yield | 1:1 backing, no yield | 1:1 backing, no yield |
| Redemption at Par | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory |
| Interest/Yield Prohibited | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| State-Level Pathway | Not applicable | Yes (state-chartered issuers) | No |
| Passporting | Yes (EU-wide) | No | No |
| Oversight Model | National regulators per member state | Dual (state + federal) | Centralized federal |
| Timeline | Fully enforceable (2024) | TBD | TBD |
Planning Takeaways for Stablecoin Issuers
Choosing where to launch is ultimately a question of market priority, legal clarity, and compliance agility.
If you’re prioritizing access to the European market and are prepared to invest in regulatory structuring, MiCA is the clearest and most stable regime. Its benefits include passporting, transparent licensing, and high investor trust.
In contrast, the GENIUS Act offers the most flexibility for U.S.-based companies—particularly those already operating under progressive state frameworks. But the timeline for passage is uncertain, and assumptions based on a future law carry risk.
The STABLE Act may benefit highly regulated financial institutions, but offers fewer pathways for startups due to its federal-only model and strict enforcement posture.
Final Thoughts
Stablecoin regulation is converging, but not harmonized. For founders, choosing the right regime is as much a business decision as a legal one.
MiCA delivers certainty and scalability in Europe. The GENIUS Act could unlock U.S. access with optionality for state-chartered issuers—if enacted. The STABLE Act promises stronger consumer protections, but adds federal compliance complexity.
At Veritas Global, we work with founders, fintechs, and investors to structure stablecoin programs across jurisdictions. From MiCA readiness and licensing to U.S. launch strategy under state or federal proposals, we help you navigate complexity with clarity.
Launching a stablecoin in the EU or U.S.? Contact us today to align your go-to-market plan with global regulation.
