Charlyn Ho Shares Insight on Evolving Stablecoin Regulations and Crypto’s Shift Toward Banking

As regulatory frameworks for stablecoins emerge across major global jurisdictions, crypto companies are increasingly navigating a path once defined by the traditional banking sector. In a recent Cointelegraph Magazine feature titled “ Crypto Wanted to Overthrow Banks, Now It’s Becoming Them in Stablecoin Fight ,” Rikka founder Charlyn Ho offered legal perspective on what these changes mean for the future of the digital asset space.

The article explores how major crypto firms, including Circle, BitGo, and Coinbase are embracing regulation by pursuing banking charters or state-level licenses in anticipation of pending legislation such as the STABLE Act and the GENIUS Act in the U.S., and existing frameworks like MiCA in the EU and Hong Kong’s stablecoin bill.

Charlyn Ho emphasized that crypto’s roots in financial liberation, such as enabling banking access for underserved populations, are now intersecting with a more institutional path:

“When I was at my old law firm, one of the early pro bono projects we worked on involved helping women in Afghanistan who were traditionally barred from having bank accounts. The goal was to use Bitcoin to give them access to funds in a way that couldn’t be taken away by male family members. In contrast, traditional banks in some places might impose restrictions like requiring a male co-signer for account creation or withdrawals. So crypto offered an alternative system that could provide banking-like access without traditional barriers.”

However, she noted that pending U.S. legislation could reshape how crypto firms operate by mirroring traditional financial compliance systems. “The mainstreaming of digital assets,” she said, “does mean some loss of independence from the traditional banking system.”

When asked about the likelihood of either of the two bills before congress passing, she noted, “I think one or the other will advance … since they have overlapping scopes, either they will need to be de-conflicted so there aren’t contradictory legal requirements, or one of the two will have to be passed.”

Across the Atlantic, the EU’s MiCA framework already regulates stablecoins, while Hong Kong is finalizing its licensing regime through the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). These frameworks share structural similarities, including licensing and reserve requirements, but differ in policy orientation.

Ho drew parallels between stablecoin regulation and broader U.S.-EU legal contrasts:

“In privacy law, Europe’s GDPR creates a comprehensive framework for protecting personal data across the EU. In contrast, the US doesn’t have a federal privacy law yet — privacy is handled state by state, which mirrors GDPR somewhat, but only at the state level.”

As the digital asset ecosystem continues to mature, legal clarity will play a vital role in shaping market growth, innovation, and consumer trust. Whether through bank charters, bespoke digital asset licenses, or hybrid models, firms must now straddle the line between crypto-native ideals and regulatory integration.