Circle is pressing the UK to move faster on stablecoin regulation, with the company arguing that the country should not build its framework in isolation. Dante Disparte said the UK should combine elements of Europe’s MiCA regime with the U.S. approach represented by the GENIUS Act. In remarks delivered on Oct. 23, 2024, Circle’s global head of policy framed that hybrid model as the most practical route to giving regulated stablecoins a clear legal place in the financial system.
At the center of his message was urgency. Disparte argued that the UK needs to deliver legal clarity within “months, not years” if it wants stablecoins to play a meaningful role in domestic payments and cross-border finance. His view was that delay would not preserve the status quo so much as weaken the UK’s ability to compete in a financial system that is already becoming more digital.
A Hybrid Model Built on Clarity and Growth
Disparte pointed to MiCA as a useful example of legal certainty because it gives fiat-backed stablecoins an e-money status and creates passportability across the European Union. He presented MiCA’s categorical clarity as a feature the UK should replicate if it wants issuers and market participants to operate with confidence. In his telling, the European framework offers a more predictable structure for how these products should be classified and supervised.
At the same time, he argued that the UK should also borrow from the U.S. legislative approach. Disparte said the GENIUS Act reflects a more explicitly pro-innovation posture, with bipartisan support and protections intended to prevent securities-law overreach. That side of the model, he suggested, would help the UK avoid forcing stablecoin activity into rules that were not designed for payment-focused digital assets.
He described the combined approach as a way to create a more workable market structure. The framework he outlined would aim to create a level playing field for payment systems and e-money operators while imposing requirements on reserves, disclosures, and operational resilience. He also made the point that these are standards Circle already says it follows in practice, which allowed him to present the proposal as both realistic and commercially viable.
The UK’s Delay Carries an Economic Cost
Disparte framed the debate in broader economic terms rather than as a narrow regulatory dispute. He argued that the UK risks missing future growth if it delays legislation that could support wholesale banking improvements, real-time payments, and the digitization of the pound. In that context, his warning was that hesitation could end up protecting legacy structures at the expense of job creation and new financial infrastructure.
From Circle’s perspective, a harmonized UK framework would also make life easier for global issuers operating across major markets. Disparte said a regime that aligns MiCA-style certainty with U.S.-style legislative guardrails would lower compliance complexity and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. That, in turn, could make the UK more attractive as a place for issuance, operations, and cross-border stablecoin activity.
The practical implications extend beyond issuers alone. A clearer UK rulebook would also set more defined expectations for exchanges, custodians, banks, and payment firms as they build around reserve standards, disclosure formats, and licensing pathways. The broader point in Disparte’s comments was that stablecoin legislation is no longer just about consumer protection; it is also about whether the UK wants to compete for the next generation of financial infrastructure.
