Infrastructure vs. Intermediary in the GENIUS Act
On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed into law the GENIUS Act, the first U.S. regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The law establishes a dual federal–state regime for stablecoin issuers, requires strict reserve backing, provides for redemption rights and sets rules for foreign issuers operating in the United States.
It also introduces a new category of intermediary - the Digital Asset Service Provider (DASP) - and spells out obligations for these entities. Importantly, certain activities are excluded from the definition of DASP, in recognition of the difference between providing infrastructure and acting as an intermediary. We have discussed this overarching point at some length in our first submission to the SEC Crypto Task Force and expanded on the “nature of the activity” test in our second submission. This distinction between infrastructure providers and regulated intermediaries is important for the GENIUS Act and beyond.
How DASPs are defined
Under the GENIUS Act, DASPs are defined as entities that:
Exchange digital assets for money
Exchange digital assets for other digital assets
Transfer digital assets to a third party
Act as digital asset custodians
Provide financial services related to digital asset issuance
These categories line up with various acknowledged types of intermediaries, including from the 2019 Guidance issued by FinCEN on money services business activities in convertible virtual currencies. The federal securities, commodities and banking laws all require equivalent activities to be done in a regulated entity.
What DASPs are not
Congress recognized that certain activities are not those of an intermediary and excluded them from the definition of DASP in the GENIUS Act. In particular, the DASP definition excludes:
a distributed ledger protocol;
developing, operating, or engaging in the business of developing distributed ledger protocols or self-custodial software interfaces;
an immutable and self-custodial software interface;
developing, operating, or engaging in the business of validating transactions or operating a distributed ledger; or
participating in a liquidity pool or other similar mechanism for the provisioning of liquidity for peer-to-peer transactions.
These exclusions are comparable to the distinctions drawn by FinCEN about money services business activities, as well of those of some international financial regulators with respect to their intermediaries. They reflect an understanding that providing infrastructure - such as deploying hardware, developing software, or providing communications and data - is not the same as offering regulated activities.
Both of our submissions to the SEC Crypto Task Force highlighted this same principle: infrastructure that enables transactions by individual actors should not be treated the same as intermediaries that solicit or execute them on other actors’ behalf, or custody the assets. Our second submission argued for a “nature of the activity” test that focuses on what a firm does, not the technology it builds or deploys.
Why it matters – the growth of tokenization
We have long advocated for a sensible, workable token classification that recognizes the nature of the asset as paramount, including through many comment letters to regulators and other authorities around the world. With the ongoing rise of tokenization of “real world assets” such as regulated financial instruments, we expect to see more regulated intermediaries become involved on a global basis. In addition to common US intermediaries like broker-dealers, exchanges, FCMs and banks, this will include European CASPs and MiFID intermediaries, those regulated by the Japan FSA, the Korean FSC, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Hong Kong SFC and the UK FCA as well as many other financial regulators around the world as and when their regulatory regimes come on stream.
In all these jurisdictions, the distinction between offering regulated activities and providing infrastructure will grow in importance as more assets are tokenized on blockchains and more transactions are conducted via smart contracts. This dividing line is relevant regardless of whether the network or application is centrally controlled or distributed and permissionless.
Exclusions like those in the GENIUS Act are a key milestone for crypto policy by helping regulators distinguish between intermediaries that offer services to others and the providers of infrastructure. The text gives market participants greater clarity, sets a precedent for future legislation and rulemaking, and gives support to common sense notion that technology infrastructure should not be regulated like financial middlemen.