Circle Told UK Parliament to Copy 'the Best of Both' From EU and US Stablecoin Rules. Here's What That Actually Means.
On March 18, Dante Disparte — Circle's chief strategy officer and head of global policy — testified before the UK House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee. His recommendation: the UK should create a "hybrid" stablecoin framework that combines regulatory clarity from the EU's MiCA with consumer protections from the US GENIUS Act. "Take the best of both and make it distinctly British," he said.
It's a reasonable-sounding pitch. It's worth examining whose interests it serves.
What Disparte Actually Proposed
From MiCA, Circle wants the UK to adopt: clear regulatory definitions, licensing requirements, governance structures, and robust consumer protections. From the GENIUS Act: its fundamental approach to stablecoin classification and consumer protection framework. The four principles Circle recommends as the foundation: 1-to-1 reserve backing, high-quality liquid reserves, enforceable redemptions, and strong transparency standards.
These requirements are, broadly speaking, how Circle already operates. USDC is fully reserved in cash and short-duration US Treasuries, regularly attested by Grant Thornton and audited by Deloitte, and redeemable 1-for-1 on demand. Proposing these standards to UK Parliament isn't altruism — it's proposing a regulatory floor that Circle can clear and smaller or less-capitalized competitors may not. According to Cointelegraph's coverage of the testimony, Disparte warned that without a clear framework, stablecoin activity would migrate offshore and expose UK users to greater risks.
The Same Week in Brussels
Two days after testifying in London, Circle filed formal feedback with the European Commission asking it to lower MiCA's market cap thresholds for euro-denominated e-money tokens. The EU framework currently restricts settlement use to "significant" EMTs — a classification no euro stablecoin, including Circle's EURC, has approached. Circle wants those thresholds cut.
Read both moves together: Circle asked the UK to set standards equivalent to those in MiCA (where Circle already holds operating licenses), and asked the EU to lower the specific MiCA barriers where Circle's own products fall short. The pattern is consistent: support regulation that legitimizes compliant large-scale issuers, while reducing the specific provisions that impede Circle's own growth.
Why the UK Matters as a Regulatory Venue
Post-Brexit, the UK isn't bound by MiCA. The Financial Conduct Authority is developing a standalone stablecoin framework, with consultation ongoing. No major stablecoin issuer has a formal UK license yet. A UK framework that broadly mirrors MiCA would allow Circle to expand into London financial markets with minimal additional compliance cost, since its European licensing infrastructure is already in place.
A genuinely novel UK approach — stricter, or structured differently — would require new investment and potentially restrict how Circle products can be offered to UK retail and institutional users. The "hybrid" recommendation neatly avoids that scenario.
What the UK Should Actually Weigh
None of this makes Circle's substantive proposals wrong. Reserve requirements, redemption guarantees, and transparency standards are the correct baseline for stablecoins operating in UK financial markets. The question Parliament should ask is whether those standards are calibrated to protect consumers or primarily to protect large incumbents by raising barriers to entry.
The same debate is playing out in Washington and Brussels simultaneously. Stablecoin regulation is being written in real time, and the companies lobbying hardest for "clarity" are the ones who benefit most from having rules — as long as they helped design them.