The USDH debate is one of the more interesting events in recent crypto memory — a case where US policy (the GENIUS Act) is crucial to a major design decision. I have no vote, but I do see some misunderstanding about GENIUS worth clarifying. A few points to consider for those evaluating the proposals: 1) There is no such thing as a "GENIUS-compliant" stablecoin today. A lot of the debate has focused on whether the stablecoin proposals comply with GENIUS. But the bill itself doesn't actually provide the rules for how issuers can comply — it sets forth a general framework and leaves the details for regulators to fill in through rulemaking. A whole lot of rulemaking! And until that rulemaking is done, there is no way to evaluate if a stablecoin is compliant. Rulemaking isn't a minor detail or mere delay — GENIUS literally doesn't become effective law until 120 days after the rules are finalized, which is supposed to happen by July 18, 2026. That set the expected effective date of GENIUS at November 15, 2026. Until then, stablecoins will continue to be regulated exactly as they were one, five, ten years ago. Given this, what matters most is that USDH complies with current law as it stands today. Sure, it's possible to get a jump start on GENIUS by obtaining licenses or charters sooner than later. But it's equally possible to waste time and resources on the wrong approach before rulemaking is done. Stablecoin issuers should have plenty of time to get into compliance with GENIUS as the rules come together. Supporting or opposing USDH proposals based on GENIUS compliance today — before we even know what GENIUS compliance means — seems like putting the cart before the horse. 2) State regulation offers little or no benefit for stablecoins with over $10b in total supply. Some of the debate has focused on state charters and licensing as an advantage for GENIUS compliance. I don't see it. One thing we know about GENIUS is that it will offer two pathways for stablecoin issuance — state and federal. The state pathway will work for smaller stablecoins that keep their total supply under $10b. The federal pathway will be mandatory for all stablecoins that get bigger than $10b. If you're bullish on the Hyperliquid ecosystem, then you probably want to plan for USDH to exceed $10b in total supply. This means the issuer will need to follow federal, not state, compliance requirements. To do so, issuers will have to be regulated as banks or obtain a federal charter from the OCC. It's hard to see how state charters or licensing could help with the federal pathway. In fact, obtaining state charters or licenses may be a waste of time and resources, except to the extent necessary to comply with current law before GENIUS becomes effective. So the focus on state regulation seems misplaced. 3) Evaluating GENIUS compliance is a "founder bet" as much as a legal analysis. As I've said a couple times, it is definitely important that USDH comply with current law as it stands. But since GENIUS isn't effective yet — and since we don't even know what the rules will be — the key question for evaluating USDH proposals isn't "is this team GENIUS-compliant right now?" but rather "is this team sophisticated and skilled enough to become GENIUS-compliant when the time comes?" As @CampbellJAustin said today, "Fun to see this @HyperliquidX thing waking everyone up to the fact that distribution is the key economic factor for stablecoins...." In my humble opinion, what you want is a killer team that can follow the law today, prepare for the law tomorrow, and meanwhile crush the USDH go-to-market with world-class execution. I can't wait to see who wins 👀(Jake Chervinsky)