2025 Was the Year Crypto Regulation in the US Finally Grew Up

For years, crypto regulation in the United States felt stuck in a loop. Regulators argued over definitions. Courts weighed in after the fact. Companies tried to guess how existing rules might be applied to new technology. Progress was slow, uneven, and often reactive.

In 2025, something changed.

Instead of debating what crypto is, lawmakers and regulators began focusing on how crypto markets actually function. The shift was not loud or dramatic, but it was meaningful. And it made 2025 one of the most consequential years for U.S. crypto regulation so far.

 

From Debate to Infrastructure

The defining feature of crypto regulation in 2025 was its practicality.

Regulators spent the year tackling questions that are not especially flashy but matter enormously for market growth. Who is allowed to issue a digital dollar. What backs a stablecoin in real terms. How quickly exchange traded products can be approved. What custody looks like when ownership is defined by control of a private key.

These are not philosophical debates. They are infrastructure decisions. And infrastructure is what determines whether a market stays niche or becomes part of the financial system.

That shift did not mean regulators became more permissive. It meant they became more operational.

 

A Fragmented System, With Clearer Edges

The U.S. regulatory structure remains fragmented. Congress sets the legal framework, but oversight is split across agencies.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission oversees securities markets.
• The Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates commodities and derivatives.
• The Internal Revenue Service governs tax treatment.
• Banking regulators supervise insured institutions and their subsidiaries.

That structure did not change in 2025. A single digital asset can still fall under multiple regimes depending on how it is traded, marketed, custodied, or used.

What did change is that the parts of crypto that intersect most directly with traditional finance began to get clearer boundaries and processes.

 

Stablecoins Became a Federal Issue

The most significant development of the year was the passage of the GENIUS Act, which established the first federal framework for payment stablecoins in the United States.

Before this law, stablecoins largely operated under state level money transmission rules or informal regulatory expectations. Issuers relied on disclosures and attestations. Banks stayed cautious, unsure how supervisors might view their involvement.

The new framework set expectations around who can issue payment stablecoins, how reserves must be held, and how redemption works under supervision. In practical terms, it began to treat stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

That matters because stablecoins sit at the center of crypto trading, payments, and settlement. Clear federal rules make it easier for banks and regulated firms to engage without risking regulatory surprises.

 

Investment Products Got More Predictable

Crypto investment products also moved forward.

The SEC approved generic listing standards for certain commodity based trust products. That change reduced the need for one off negotiations for every new exchange traded product and made approval timelines more predictable.

Predictability may not generate headlines, but it changes behavior. It lowers legal costs, shortens timelines, and makes firms more willing to launch products beyond the most obvious ones. It also makes advisers and institutions more comfortable allocating capital through standardized structures.

Tax treatment improved as well. The IRS introduced a staking safe harbor for certain trust structures, allowing proof of stake assets to generate yield without automatically breaking tax classification. That adjustment brought tax rules closer to how these networks actually operate.

 

Custody Finally Moved Into Focus

Custody has long been one of crypto’s most difficult issues.

Traditional finance is built around regulated custodians, clear chains of control, and established customer protection rules. Crypto does not fit neatly into that model, since control is defined by private keys rather than physical possession or centralized records.

In late 2025, regulators began addressing this gap more directly. The SEC provided guidance on how broker dealers should approach custody of crypto asset securities. Banking regulators outlined how institutions could apply to issue stablecoins through supervised subsidiaries.

These steps did not eliminate complexity, but they replaced ambiguity with process. In regulated markets, that distinction is crucial.

 

What Was Left Unfinished

Not everything was resolved.

The largest unresolved issue remains market structure, particularly the line between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act advanced in Congress but did not become law in 2025. That uncertainty continues to influence how companies list tokens and design compliance programs.

Still, the fact that market structure legislation remained active suggests the debate has moved from whether crypto should be regulated to how best to finish the framework.

 

Why 2025 Mattered

Most of the regulatory changes in 2025 were not about enforcement actions or penalties. They were about building rules that allow institutions to participate without improvisation.

Stablecoins gained a federal framework. Investment products became more standardized. Custody moved closer to supervision rather than theory.

Taken together, these steps made crypto look less like a legal edge case and more like emerging financial infrastructure.

 

Looking Ahead

If 2025 was about laying groundwork, 2026 will be about implementation.

The next phase will involve rulemaking, supervision, and real world deployment. Stablecoin issuers will apply for licenses. Banks will test new payment rails. Product sponsors will launch under clearer standards.

The momentum from 2025 created something the U.S. crypto market has lacked for years: a sense that the rules, while still evolving, are becoming legible.

 

That may not satisfy everyone. But for a market that thrives on scale, clarity is often more valuable than certainty.

 

Where the Conversation Continues

For anyone trying to understand where crypto regulation and policy are actually headed, these conversations are no longer abstract. They are happening in real time, often face to face.

That is part of what makes Rare Evo stand out.

Rare Evo takes place July 28-31, 2026, in Las Vegas at The ARIA Resort & Casino, and has become one of the premier industry event where regulators, policymakers, and blockchain builders share the same room. It is not just a conference about price action or product launches. It is a place to hear directly from the people shaping policy, alongside the teams building the technology those policies will govern.

Panels and discussions at Rare Evo tend to focus on how regulation works in practice, what regulators are actually thinking, and how the industry can engage constructively rather than reactively. For anyone serious about long term adoption, it is one of the more valuable rooms to be in.

You can learn more about the event and purchase tickets at https://rareevo.io/buy-tickets

 

Alongside that conversation is the role of Rare PAC.

Rare PAC focuses on supporting policymakers who understand digital assets and who are willing to engage seriously with the work of building clear, workable rules in the United States. It is not about opposing regulation. It is about avoiding regulation by confusion or enforcement after the fact.

As 2026 approaches, the progress made in 2025 will only matter if it is protected and extended. That requires continued participation, education, and engagement from people who care about the future of crypto in the US.

For those interested in learning more or getting involved, information is available at https://rarepac.io

 

If 2025 was the year crypto regulation became practical, the next phase will depend on whether that momentum is carried forward. Conversations like the ones at Rare Evo, and efforts like Rare PAC, are part of how that happens.

U.S. FDIC Moves to Define Stablecoin Rules, Bringing Washington Closer to a Real Framework

For years, stablecoins have lived in an uncomfortable gray zone in the U.S. financial system. Big enough to matter, but never quite official enough to be fully welcomed. That may finally be changing.

On December 16, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took a significant step by proposing the first formal rules for stablecoins under the recently passed GENIUS Act. It is the clearest signal yet that Washington intends to treat certain stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

This is not a sweeping overhaul overnight. But it is a meaningful start.

 

What the FDIC Is Actually Proposing

The FDIC’s proposal focuses on process before product. Rather than setting hard capital or reserve requirements immediately, the agency is laying out how banks can apply to issue stablecoins through regulated subsidiaries.

In simple terms, the rule defines how a bank asks permission, what information regulators expect to see, how long the FDIC has to respond, and what happens if an application is rejected.

Under the proposal, banks would submit detailed applications covering governance, risk management, compliance controls, and operational readiness. The FDIC would have set timelines to review submissions, determine whether they are complete, and issue approvals or denials. There is also an appeals process, which is notable in a space where regulatory decisions have often felt opaque.

There is even a temporary safe harbor for early applicants, giving institutions a window to engage before all GENIUS Act requirements fully take effect.

None of this is flashy. That is the point.

 

Why the GENIUS Act Changed the Conversation

The FDIC’s move only makes sense in the context of the GENIUS Act, which passed earlier this year after years of stalled crypto legislation. The law created a new category for payment stablecoins and, crucially, decided who gets to supervise them.

Under the act, stablecoins designed for payments are no longer left floating between agencies. The FDIC is responsible for stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of insured banks, while other regulators handle different corners of the market.

The law also sets the broad expectations. Stablecoins must be fully backed, redeemable at par, and supported by transparent reserves. They are not treated as securities, and they are not left entirely to state regulators either.

That clarity alone has shifted the leading question from “Is this allowed?” to “How does this work in practice?”

 

A Quiet but Important Shift

What stands out about the FDIC proposal is how procedural it is. This is not Washington hyping innovation or trying to pick winners. It is regulators building guardrails, slowly and deliberately.

That may frustrate parts of the crypto industry that hoped for faster approval paths or broader access for nonbank issuers. But for traditional financial institutions, this kind of rulemaking is familiar. It reduces uncertainty, and uncertainty is often the biggest barrier to participation.

Banks have been hesitant to touch stablecoins directly, not because they lacked interest, but because the regulatory consequences were unclear. This proposal begins to close that gap.

 

What Comes Next

The current proposal is only the first layer. The FDIC and other agencies are expected to follow with rules covering capital, liquidity, reserve composition, and ongoing supervision.

Those details will matter. A lot.

Too strict, and stablecoin issuance could remain concentrated among a small number of players. Too loose, and regulators risk recreating the same fragilities they are trying to prevent.

There is also the question of how these U.S. rules will interact with frameworks emerging in Europe and Asia. Stablecoins move across borders easily. Regulation does not.

 

Why This Matters Beyond Crypto

Stablecoins are no longer just a crypto market issue. They sit at the intersection of payments, banking, and monetary policy.

If regulated correctly, they could make settlement faster, cheaper, and more resilient. If handled poorly, they could introduce new forms of run risk into the financial system.

The FDIC’s proposal suggests regulators understand that tension. This is not an endorsement of stablecoins, but it is an acknowledgment that they are not going away.

After years of debate, enforcement actions, and regulatory silence, the U.S. is finally starting to write the rulebook. Slowly. Carefully. And very much on its own terms.

 

That alone marks a turning point.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.