In Part 1, I broke down the GENIUS Act's core mechanics, as well as its winners and losers. Today, let’s go deeper. Because beneath the clean regulatory framework lies a strategic bet AND a systemic risk. Firstly, the U.S. is sidestepping the messy politics of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and instead deputizing private issuers to carry the digital dollar into the future: licensed, collateralized, regulated. It’s programmable finance, wrapped in the credibility of the state. But regulatory clarity ≠ systemic safety. Secondly, GENIUS opens a controlled sandbox where players like @Circle, @Stripe, and potentially even @Amazon, @Meta, or big banks can issue branded dollars. It sounds like innovation until those “Bezos Bucks” or “Zuckerbucks” face a liquidity crunch, a reputational hit, or operational failure. And we’ve seen this movie before: > @USDC depegged to $0.87 during the SVB collapse. > @Tether_to slipped to $0.95 during the Luna contagion. Both survived, but only because their tentacles hadn’t yet reached deeply into the heart of the financial system. Now they will. With stablecoins holding deposits, integrating with payroll, payments, and eventually capital markets, a loss of trust in one issuer could create panic across the system. We are building interoperability with risk, and we don’t fully understand the feedback loops yet. This is where GENIUS starts to look like a double-edged sword. The GENIUS Act is coherent, necessary, and strategically bold. It gives the dollar a way to compete globally, programmable by design. But it also embeds the risk of fragmentation, arbitrage, and systemic transmission. GENIUS is how the dollar becomes code. Let’s just make sure it doesn’t rewrite history. 🔥