Circle raised $222M for Arc, its own layer-one blockchain. An issuer owning the rail its USDC settles on is the conflict the GENIUS Act never addressed.
Getty Images
Circle has spent two years presenting itself as the responsible stablecoin issuer, the one that wanted regulation, welcomed the rules, and would rather be a boring, fully reserved dollar than a crypto gamble. That positioning made sense while Circle was only an issuer. The company is now moving into a different role, and the new role revives a conflict of interest that financial regulation usually works hard to keep apart.
Arc turns the issuer into the infrastructure
On May 11, 2026, Circle disclosed that it had raised $222 million in a token presale for Arc, its own layer-one blockchain, at a fully diluted network valuation of around $3 billion. Andreessen Horowitz led the raise, with BlackRock, Apollo and the New York Stock Exchange’s parent company, Intercontinental Exchange, among the backers. A publicly listed company running a token presale is itself a first, and the size of the round signals how seriously Circle is treating the project.
Arc is a central bet. Circle unveiled it in 2025 as a stablecoin-native chain, with USDC serving as the native asset used to pay transaction fees, and it has since put the network through a public testnet. Circle’s chief executive has said the company is exploring a native Arc token and a shift to proof-of-stake validation. Circle wants to own the blockchain its dollar moves across, rather than issue a dollar that travels over infrastructure other companies control.
Why an issuer owning the rail is a problem
Traditional finance keeps the issuer of an instrument separate from the infrastructure that clears and settles it. A clearing system has to treat every participant’s transactions neutrally, sequence them fairly, and apply the same rules to the issuer’s competitors as to the issuer itself. When the issuer also owns the settlement layer, that neutrality survives only as a promise, with no structure forcing it to hold.
Arc gives Circle control over transaction ordering, validation, and the rules of the network on which its own product competes. A rival stablecoin that wants to settle on Arc would be operating on infrastructure owned by its direct competitor. Circle would be in a position to set fees, prioritise transactions, define technical standards and adjust the network in ways that favour USDC, and owning the chain imposes no obligation to refrain. The concern is not a prediction that Circle will abuse the position. The concern is that the position should not be available to an issuer in the first place, because the temptation it creates is structural and permanent.
GENIUS regulated the coin and ignored the rail
This is the gap in the law. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, was written to make stablecoins safe as instruments. It dictates what reserves must back a payment stablecoin, how those reserves are disclosed, who supervises the issuer, and how holders are protected. As issuer regulation it is detailed and, on its own terms, careful.
On market structure it is close to silent. The drafters concentrated on the coin, on whether a dollar token is genuinely worth a dollar and genuinely redeemable. They did not address the issuer of that token also owning and operating the settlement network beneath it, because in 2025 no major issuer did. Circle has now stepped into the space the law left blank. The GENIUS Act governs the dollar in a user’s wallet, and says nothing about a company that owns the wallet, the rail and the dollar at the same time.
The institutional backers show what Arc is for
Read the investor list from the Arc raise. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager and the manager of the reserves behind USDC. Apollo is a major private-credit firm. Intercontinental Exchange owns the New York Stock Exchange. These are institutions that build and operate market infrastructure for a living, and they do not commit capital to a chain in order to speculate on a token price.
They are buying a stake in what they expect to become core financial plumbing, a settlement network for tokenised dollars and, over time, for tokenised funds and securities. Arc is being built and capitalised as infrastructure, as a venue that other institutions will route value through, and the company controlling that venue is the same company whose stablecoin is supposed to be the neutral money flowing across it.
Why Circle feels it has no choice
The strategy carries a defensive logic worth stating plainly. USDC competes with Tether’s USDT, a coin more than twice its size, and it competes with a growing field of bank-issued tokens and payment-company stablecoins. An issuer that only issues earns a spread on its reserves and little else, and that spread is the entire business. The position is thin and contestable, and every serious competitor is now trying to climb out of it by owning more of the stack.
Stripe has built its own chain. Tether is expanding into infrastructure and distribution. For Circle to remain a pure issuer while its rivals become platforms would mean accepting the weakest seat at the table. Arc is Circle’s attempt to move from selling a product to operating a venue, where the margins are larger and more durable. That same logic is the reason the conflict needs rules, because every other major issuer has the same incentive to follow Circle onto a rail of its own.
What a fix would actually require
A structural conflict calls for a structural response, and financial regulation already contains workable models. Exchanges operate under fair-access and non-discrimination rules. Clearing houses operate under governance requirements that separate them from the interests of any single member. The principle holds across both: infrastructure that everyone has to use cannot be controlled in a way that favours one user.
Applied to Arc, that principle would translate into obligations attached to the network rather than to the coin. Transaction ordering would have to be demonstrably neutral between USDC and competing stablecoins. Fee schedules would have to be public and uniform. Governance of the chain would have to be separated, in an auditable way, from Circle’s commercial interest in USDC winning market share. None of this is exotic, since it is the standard toolkit for regulated market infrastructure, and the only reason it does not already apply is that the law was written before a stablecoin issuer became infrastructure.
The European approach offers a useful contrast. The EU’s markets-in-crypto-assets regime, like the GENIUS Act, aimed its stablecoin rules at issuers and reserves, and neither regime built a market-structure chapter for an issuer that also runs a settlement network. Both sets of rules predate the case Circle has now created. Writing the missing chapter is cheapest while Arc is still a testnet graduating toward production, and far more expensive once the network has become plumbing the tokenised-dollar economy depends on.
A reserve manager and a settlement chain in the same orbit
There is a second conflict folded inside the first, and the investor list points straight at it. BlackRock manages the reserves that back USDC and is also a backer of Arc. The reserve manager, the issuer, and the settlement chain are now connected through overlapping commercial interests. Each relationship may be perfectly defensible on its own. Together they describe a tightly held cluster of firms with aligned incentives sitting at the centre of what is meant to be neutral dollar infrastructure.
Concentration of that kind is precisely what market-structure rules exist to interrogate. The question for regulators is not whether these are reputable institutions, because they plainly are. The question is whether the tokenised-dollar system should be allowed to form around a small group of mutually invested firms before anyone has decided what neutrality obligations apply to the venue at its core.
The window for rules is short
Timing is the part of this story regulators should sit up for. Arc has moved from announcement to a public testnet to a funded token raise inside roughly a year, and Circle has signalled a path to a mainnet launch and a shift to proof-of-stake validation. Infrastructure of this kind becomes difficult to reshape once it carries real value, because the cost of changing the rules then falls on every institution that built on top of it.
A settlement network accumulates integrations, liquidity, and dependent applications, and each of those raises the switching cost of any later intervention. The practical moment to decide what neutrality obligations attach to a stablecoin issuer’s chain is while Arc is still pre-mainnet, when a rule changes a design document rather than a live system. Once Arc is processing institutional volume, a regulator asking Circle to separate governance of the chain from its commercial interest in USDC would be ordering a reconstruction of live infrastructure rather than writing a rule, and reconstructions of that kind are slow, costly, and fiercely resisted.
Vertical integration is the strategy, and the risk
Circle is not behaving irrationally. Owning the full stack follows the same logic Stripe is pursuing with its own chain, and from a shareholder’s standpoint it is the correct move, because margin accrues to whoever controls the infrastructure and an issuer that only issues is a thin business resting on someone else’s rail.
The strategy that serves Circle’s shareholders is the one regulators should be examining now, before it sets. Structural conflicts are cheap to prevent and expensive to unwind. The questions are not complicated to state. A regulated stablecoin issuer may or may not be permitted to own the settlement network its competitors must use, and if it is permitted, some set of neutrality obligations has to attach to that network. The GENIUS Act answered neither, because in 2025 neither question needed an answer. Both need one in 2026, and Circle is the reason they do.
