Committee advances bill to regulate stablecoins, tying state rules to federal "Genius Act"

Chairman Todd Jones presided over a committee hearing that advanced legislation to create a state regulatory framework for stablecoins, with witnesses and the sponsor arguing the measure would preserve Georgia’s fintech competitiveness.

The bill sponsor told the committee the Georgia Payment Stablecoin Act is intended as a state-level companion to the federal "Genius Act," and would empower the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance to license and supervise stablecoin issuers while requiring issuers to back coins 1:1 with U.S. dollars and short-term Treasury instruments.

Supporters said the bill protects consumers and the state banking system while enabling fintech growth. "We are moving stable coins out of the Wild West and into a regulated environment," the bill sponsor said, framing the proposal as licensing, examination and supervision rather than a new bank charter. Industry witnesses emphasized safeguards in the draft legislation: reserves must be segregated, held in a statutory trust for coin holders, and monthly liquidity reports are required. Tony Erwin of US Blockchain Corporation said segregation and statutory-trust treatment are primary protections and that issuers will be subject to KYC and AML rules when they become regulated financial institutions.

Committee members pressed on enforcement capacity and funding. Amy Patterson, speaking for industry stakeholders, acknowledged the Department would need additional funding to stand up supervision and said the bill contemplates that resource need. A member asked whether stablecoins could displace deposits in community banks; Luther Maday, introduced as cofounder and CEO of Stablecoin Partners, replied that issuers are not banks and that coin backing will be held in bank deposits and short-term treasuries, which, he said, would not divert typical retail deposits.

Members also asked about interstate developments and whether Georgia would be first; witnesses said few states have passed laws that are "substantially similar" to the federal act and noted Florida and other states are considering measures on their own timetables. On failure scenarios, the sponsor pointed committee members to failure-protocol sections of the bill and to minimum-threshold lines that specify steps the Department would take if an issuer fails. The sponsor and witnesses repeatedly emphasized a 1:1 backing requirement and that the bill does not create a traditional bank charter.

At the end of the discussion a member moved a "do pass" recommendation; the committee approved the motion by voice vote. The committee did not record individual roll-call votes during the hearing.