Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Options
Hot
Trade European-style vanilla options
Unified Account
Maximize your capital efficiency
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Launch
CandyDrop
Collect candies to earn airdrops
Launchpool
Quick staking, earn potential new tokens
HODLer Airdrop
Hold GT and get massive airdrops for free
Launchpad
Be early to the next big token project
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
The U.S. Department of the Treasury issues proposed rules on the "substantial similarity" standard for state-level stablecoin regulation under the GENIUS Act
Deep Tide TechFlow message, April 02, according to a proposed rulemaking notice (NPRM) issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Treasury plans to establish broad principles to clarify when state-level stablecoin regulatory regimes can be deemed to be “substantially similar” to the federal regulatory framework, to fulfill the requirements of Section 4© of the “Laying the Groundwork for U.S. Innovation in Stablecoins Act” (GENIUS Act).
The core points are as follows:
State-level regulatory regimes must meet or exceed the federal standards set out in Section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act, and must not be less stringent than the federal regulatory floor on core prudential requirements, including reserve assets, redemptions, capital requirements, liquidity management, and risk management;
The “federal regulatory framework” definition covers the text of the Act and the interpretations and regulations published by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the Federal Register; for the BSA/sanctions compliance portion, the Treasury’s requirements apply; for the anti-binding clause, the Federal Reserve’s requirements apply;
Regulatory requirements are divided into two categories: “uniform requirements” and “state-determined requirements.” The former requires state-level regimes to be fully identical in substance to the federal framework, while the latter allows states to set their own requirements, but the regulatory outcome must be at least equally strict;
State-level regimes must include supporting frameworks for transitioning to federal oversight, applying for authorization, supervision and enforcement, custody, and insolvency/bankruptcy, and may add additional requirements on the condition that they do not conflict with federal law.