Featured

Nonprofit Organizations and Digital Assets, Beginning with Stablecoins

In July of 2025, the U.S. Congress enacted a law titled: “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act” (commonly referred to as “the GENIUS Act”). This law would permit the issuance of a form of digital asset known as a “payment stablecoin” that would be used only for purposes of payment or settlement and not investment. Among various entities, payment stablecoins maybe issued by depository institutions but are not federally insured. Rather, they are supported by the requirement that every payment stablecoin issuer maintain a reserve fund of equal value to its outstanding payment stablecoins in U.S. dollars or items of a similar form.

In the course of implementing the GENIUS Act, the U.S. Department of the Treasury requested comments from the general public with respect to future regulation. The memorandum below was submitted in response.

From: Lori G. Nuckolls, Public Policy Researcher and Writer, Philosophy, Law and Politics (lorigaylenuckolls.blog)

To: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention: Office of the General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20220, Via Electronic Submission: https://www.regulations.gov

Re: GENIUS Act Implementation Comments, TREAS-DO-2025-0037, 90 Fed. Reg. 45159-45163 (Sept. 19, 2025), 90 Fed. Reg. 47251 (Oct. 1, 2025) (Submission date extension)

Date: November 1, 2025

I. Introduction

The GENIUS Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5901-5916 (2025), was enacted with the legislative purpose of providing legal guidance and regulation in the use of stablecoins as a digital asset. A statutorily created “payment stablecoin,” denominated in U.S. Dollars, would be issued by legally approved entities and would allow entrance into the digital marketplace in a safe and sound manner. 90 Fed. Reg. 45159 (Sept. 19, 2025). In regulating the issuance of payment stablecoins by subsidiaries of depository institutions, specifically nonprofit depository institutions such as credit unions, the U.S. Department of the Treasury should consider regulations that support and permit as well require the nonprofit organizations to honor their asserted charitable mission and purpose. With respect to the credit union, this would be pursuance of its historical mission and purpose of enabling its governing members to obtain access to historically unavailable financial services, develop financial literacy, and transition into a competitive socio-economic environment premised upon self-government and self-sustainability. Credit unions which have already successfully entered the heretofore unregulated digital asset marketplace offer extensive and direct training to leaders, staff, and members to avoid financial loss. Participation of credit unions, large and small, in a well-regulated digital asset marketplace would facilitate the long-sought self-government and financial growth of members.

The Department of the Treasury should consider that nonprofit financial institutions bear a higher ethical standard than do for-profit entities. Their existence depends upon their reputation within the communities they serve and the absence of their engaging in intense competition with their peers. Credit unions rely upon the trust they engender in society, not to mention donors, volunteers and members. In governing the payment stablecoin activities of all nonprofits, including credit unions, regulators should premise requirements upon the principle that the trust engendered by the conduct of the nonprofit organization is based upon not only the appearance of propriety but also upon the absence of even the appearance of impropriety.

As a consequence, regulation could guide nonprofit organizations in achieving balance between engaging in authorized emerging digital assets and guaranteeing the financial stability of the communities served. Whereas, unleashing digital assets in a scarcely regulated environment to enable the efficiency, directness and globalization emerging digital technologies provide, would be an example of dialectical creative destruction. And, this achievement of positive development while permitting a threshold level of hardship is to be mitigated in the regulatory process. Specifically, in the historically financially fragile communities of the credit union, little is achieved by regulation allowing entrance into the digital asset marketplace if the burden of greater risk is endured by the financial communities most in need. Thus, questions arise as to how regulation of the nonprofit organization is to be structured in theory and practice.

II. Credit Union Subsidiary Issuers of Payment Stablecoins: a Theory of Regulation to Avoid the Creative Destruction Dialectic

The GENIUS Act currently provides that all issuers of payment stablecoins, state and federal, are required to meet federal standards. 12 U.S.C. § 5903(c) (2025). In regulating nonprofit organizations and, guiding regulation by the National Credit Union Administration of credit unions and the distinct communities they serve, perhaps the Department of the Treasury could consider the theoretical doctrine of the “veil of ignorance” established by American philosopher John Rawls. In the veil of ignorance, Rawls suggests that society place itself in the “original position” in which each individual in society envisions oneself to not know one’s specific place in society. (Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)).

In this case, the principles of the veil of ignorance guide governing leaders and citizens in reaching agreement as to public policy, law and regulation. Choices in law would be determined by a general understanding as to what being a citizen should mean. Commonality of thought would arise from leaders and the public alike perceiving themselves guided by the veil of ignorance under which they reach decisions and enact laws without consideration of their own personal circumstance and condition. Rather, each person deems their position to be that of those most vulnerable and in need. And, in turn, they seek a legal structure most capable of providing a just and fair society.

Specifically, the Department of the Treasury would identify with credit union staff and members most benefiting from the financial services and training provided and least familiar with emerging digital asset technologies. Safe harbor regulations for credit unions and other nonprofit organizations would guide the ambitious and encourage the wary ones unfamiliar with the digital asset marketplace. For, both are truly outnumbered by for-profit entities. In doing so, credit union regulation, in particular, would allow financial growth through the creative use of digital assets while maintaining a safety net for the credit union governed by members most in need of financial literacy and growth.

The GENIUS Act and its framework for the issuance of payment stablecoins as a creature of statute is a blank slate. It enables the beginning of a new economy premised upon regulation in the John Rawls original position, derived from the veil of ignorance. For example, both regulators and credit unions, including their issuer subsidiaries, would envision themselves in the position of a credit union with truly dependent members situated in a community of similar prospective members increasing in number. To continue in existence, this credit union and its members must be knowledgeable of market development, namely the advent of digital assets. In this position, Treasury would govern with reference to legal standards that would enable an understanding of rights, powers, and privileges, as well as the risks they engender. From this new beginning, credit unions would be able to implement risk assessment policies allowing the balancing of legally authorized conduct against the forbearance of some legally permitted activity in order to maintain trust and goodwill within the community. For, credit unions might not need to be as ambitious and as competitive as the GENIUS Act possibly allows.

III. Conclusion

With the GENIUS Act as a beginning, Congress and the administrative agencies may readily provide financial regulation of all nonprofit organizations as they enter every aspect of the digital asset marketplace. In guiding this transition, the law should promote new strategies of growth and risk management as to digital assets as it has historically with respect to more traditional financial markets.

Featured

The Ohio Citizens Redistricting Commission of Ohio Issue 1, November of 2024

How do we evaluate the fairness of proposed reforms? Historically, we see ourselves anew and think empathetically that we are in the place of those whose condition is being remedied.

The Ohio Issue 1 Citizens Redistricting Commission creates a different method of redistricting Ohio for the purpose of General Assembly and Congressional elections. Issue 1 removes the persons currently empowered to serve as the Ohio Redistricting Commission by the Ohio Constitution: the Governor, Auditor of State, Secretary of State, an appointee of the House Speaker, an appointee of the House Minority Leader, an appointee of the Senate President, and an appointee of the Senate Minority Leader. In their place, Issue 1 would name 15 Ohio citizens who: (1) are not elective or appointive officials and (2) in the previous six years, have not: (a) held elective or appointive office in Ohio; (b) been a candidate for elective office in Ohio; (c) been an officer, paid consultant, or contractor to a political party, political action campaign, or campaign committee; (d) been a staff member, paid consultant, or contractor for an elected official or candidate; or (e) been a registered lobbyist or legislative agent with the State of Ohio or the federal government. These disqualifications apply to the immediate family members of the citizen commissioners as well. Citizen commissioners will represent the two largest political parties and independent voters based upon their previous primary ballot selections.

The citizen commissioners must not, in general, possess interests that conflict with the redistricting process. For, they are prohibited from holding elective or appointive office in Ohio for the six years following certification of their commission ‘s redistricting plan.

The redistricting plan of the Citizens Commission is subject to judicial review and must comply with the U.S. Constitution and applicable federal law, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The proposed redistricting method of Issue 1 is, thus, accountable to the judiciary and constitutional principles of due process and equal protection of the law. Court action is a more speedy path to justice and fairness than would be awaiting the next feasible popular ballot approval of General Assembly elective officials or the redistricting plan itself. And, the citizen commissioners are selected by a panel of retired judges. Former judges often are active in the practice of law and subject to professional rules prohibiting even the appearance of impropriety in their conduct, no less actual conflicts of interest.

When we seek to begin a new governmental structure, we should consider our personal situation. If we were potential candidates without knowledge of our political party affiliation or socio-economic status, would we deem the proposed Citizen Commission fair and just in its consideration of districts for candidates? This view is that of American philosopher John Rawls in his theory of the “veil of ignorance.” For Rawls, we at no time know our future, what our social and political standing will be. Consequently, we seek governmental reform that assures equal government. In evaluating Ohio Issue 1, and all redistricting proposals, including that currently in place, we should envision that we are both the voter and the candidate whose district is to be drawn.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Union or Disunion: Is America Devolving into a Land of Divided Fiefdoms?

The law develops overtime. The experiences of a country result in new technology and customs. Incrementally, individuals form personal opinions guiding the way they live. In America, laws are agreed upon as individuals communicate their opinions to their elected officials. The judicial system serves as government by redress when individuals disagree about the meaning of the law.

How do personal opinions and the laws to which they give rise lessen in their ability to facilitate technology and cultural experiences? We should determine whether opinions and proposed laws are evolving or devolving, going forward or backward. Do we measure advances in technology and custom objectively against earlier expressions of science and social interactions?

American expressions, like the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, are evaluated against the extent to which the law recognizes the inherent freedom of the individual. Human rights exist, fundamentally, under a federal system led by a central, national government of definitions that apply equally. Basic rights are not divvied up as decided among and between the states and territories. Achievements and advances only possess value if uniformly maintained for all. The goal of a representative democracy is peace and harmony for its public, not a devolution into acrimony and argument over the definition of essential rights and freedoms.

The law is a circular, yet didactic form. It instructs those it is made by. It creates a nation as it is created. And, an overarching abstraction then becomes the law for all. Regardless of your opinion on any matter, the naturalized American John Hector St. John de Crevecoeur provided a profound view in the idea that: from soil, values grow.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Utopia?

Will any society ever achieve perfection or an ideal structure of government? Many philosophers and political thinkers have offered utopian theories. How do we define a democratic utopia in the modern era, and how would it be expressed in practical politics, namely, in individual participation through self-government and self-expression?

Is it necessary for political candidates and elected officials to possess individual theories and understandings of what constitutes an ideal government and an ideal society? Citizens and governing officials look at democratic society from the “grassroots up” to the world above. Yet, perhaps we should also share in the belief that society and government be viewed from the top down, and that each of us should possess an individual understanding and opinion as to the manner in which we think society and government should be structured. Our choice of candidates would then be based upon whether their view of the world is close to our own.

Regardless of the place of one’s political opinion on the ideological spectrum, from radical to conservative, our individual participation in an election might be determined by our sense of what our society should be. For each of us, perhaps, utopia is our view of the ideal world.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Shouldn’t We Rely Upon Natural Aristocrats To Maintain A Democracy?

Is it possible for a democratic nation to survive when governed by an average or mediocre leader who is surrounded by above average, intellectual advisors? Does the public defer and act each day under the mind of the leader or that of the leader’s staff? In reviewing America’s current election season, perhaps we should ask if the complexity and sophistication of the nation mandate the election of candidates with the greatest academic achievements, ability, and accomplishments. Leading a nation does not involve the same skill set as does political warfare. Americans have seen what happens when persons other than its natural aristocrats are elected. Periodic corrections are required by a well-versed staff to which the elected leader defers rather than with whom the leader consults and confers. Essentially, any elected leader should be qualified to serve on the cabinet or staff of the leader. The roles should be interchangeable. If not, the self-governing people have no mentor.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Science and the Right to Abortion

Judicial review in the United States serves a fundamental purpose in American government, it permits the courts to ensure that the acts of the other two branches of government, the legislative and executive, abide the Constitution. In doing so it enables the sovereign citizenry to create a legitimate representative government. As American society develops it changes its views of the nation and the world and, as a result, the laws by which it lives. Over time, the views of its judges as seen in their legal opinions also change.

One must remark that political opinions in the United States have been modified extensively to the extent that the public has completely changed its mind on many important life defining issues. As a result, certain laws and legal opinions contradict preexisting ones. For example, the legality of racial segregation became the right to racial, integration. The illegality of contraception became the right to birth control. The illegality of racial miscegenation became the right to interracial marriage. The illegality of abortion became a legal right to private abortion. The illegality of sodomy became the right to homosexual relationships. The illegality of homosexual marriage became the right to same-sex marriage.These changes in American law occur concurrently with noteworthy developments in social customs, science and technology that render the population able to envision present society in a new manner. Some regard these legal developments as not occurring with sufficiency to be adequate or just.

With respect to the legal recognition of a right to abortion by the judiciary in 1973, many social and scientific developments have taken place prompting judicial restrictions upon this right in 2022. In example, in vitro fertilization is a very common practice. As a result, issues before society are when a right to life begins and whether one’s power to create this life is accompanied by a power to destroy it. Contemporary opinions also include those arising from whether there is a governmental power of capital punishment or a private right to assisted suicide for the terminally ill.

American society must address the legal question of what constitutes life and what are its attributes. Could the concept of in vitro fertilization include a right to property? In discussing abortion, America must reconcile its power to begin and end life with newfound scientific developments.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

Natural Aristocracy In A Time Of Digital Technology

Transitions in history often occur when scientific and technological development create social change. Our 21^st century of the postmodern era portends such social change. The digital technology before us and continually advancing, whether it be mobile phones, social media, websites, virtual reality, cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, or the myriad not mentioned and not yet invented, are a social conundrum. In implementing this new technology, a safeguard is required to provide government by society’s intellectual elite.

The objective of every democratic republic is a society of individuals treated equally by governing law. Equality is not economic; it is in the right to participate equally and to be accorded due and just reward for one’s ability. In the wisdom of a British philosopher and politician of old, Edmund Burke, this was, and should ideally be, government by a natural aristocracy. It arises from the population of the republic, from the citizens academically cultivated who defer their social doctrines and privileges to those of their country.

The American democratic republic, as well as those around the globe, rely upon an effective self-governing citizenry. This citizenry arises from a society of individuals whose ability to self-govern is cultivated from their early years. Self-government and participation in society depend upon academic institutions and cultural attributes that are both inclusive of all and supported by a national government that is derived from the country’s natural aristocracy.

Today, we look to our social melting pot, as popularized in the theater of the early 1900s. We use our governing democratic institutions to cultivate children into adults, both as citizens and immigrants, to place the role individual in society first and foremost before all other affiliations. Each individual must learn to self-govern and participate in the various strata of society and the governing institutions as a self-governing individual. Cultural and social duties and privileges are subordinate to the obligatory patriotic devotion to one’s country cultivated in children and adults.

In enjoying the advancements of our increasingly more computerized society, we should ensure that social and governmental advancements parallel all scientific and technological advancements. We must guarantee that no harm results. In benefiting from new technology, we need not experience the historical dialectic of: advancement – destruction – development.

Democratic republics are not founded upon tyranny, irregardless of whether an autocrat or the public majority. The invention and application of digital technology must be accompanied by education for all and government by the republic’s best and brightest representing the people. Only when a natural aristocracy governs is a democracy a country of equals.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

A Right and Obligation to Participate

We all deserve representation. The current distress ending in violent unrest indicates a lack of adequate political representation. This is evident in a growing increase in the divide between the haves and the have nots in an increasing number of personal attributes. Many are without an access and understanding of emerging technologies, funding and access to higher education and health care. This is most evident in America’s rural and inner-city communities.

The rights we all possess go back to the early days of the Magna Carta, 1215. These fundamental rights of the individual are now deemed possessed by all within our global community, only after periods of time in which evolving and developing societies came to realize that these rights did not belong to a limited few.

In order to avail oneself of the various rights we possess as individuals, we must be able to self-govern and reach informed decision making about our place in society and our choice of governing leaders and government structure. Identifying our public responsibilities and obligations requires that we imagine that we are behind the John Rawls “veil of ignorance.” This is a circumstance in which we do not know our own place in society. And, we must determine the threshold socio-economic level we require for subsistence and survival.

In the thoughts of Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the greatest threats to democracy is pauperism. We must admit that pauperism exists on a global scale. Tocqueville believed that pauperism is best overcome by the guidance provided to the public by the productivity and efficiency of a capitalist economy.

In Tocqueville’s day this guidance was provided by local financial institutions. Small financial institutions located in individual, political subdivisions, close to the public, instill values required to adequately participate in society and a representative democracy. Currently in America, local branches of financial institutions impart capitalist ideals of self-sufficiency and money management through financial counseling. And these institutions guide small account holders in their use of emerging technologies and personal accounts, from making deposits to money transfers and investment. According to Tocqueville, these activities encourage principles of self-sufficiency and upward mobility. For Tocqueville, this was more feasible in rural communities where small farmers needed guidance with harvest management to avoid the force majeure, boom to bust circumstance of inclement weather. Cities for Tocqueville were more difficult. Industrial economies of the 1830s resulted in cycles of unemployment with periods of low product demand and an ever-increasing urban population that could not support itself. Modern financial institutions, now, provide an economic didactic to entrepreneurial development, emerging technologies and failing, outmoded industry.

Fear of an inability to provide for oneself and participate as an equal member of society generates protest, and rebellion, both at home in America and abroad. As an initial step, perhaps we should look to the sources of this insecurity and ask how would we respond if we were sitting in the place of the insecure and what the public response should be. What would I, as an individual and participating member, require to engage in informed voting? Perhaps Tocqueville and Rawls offer a beginning. And, in the thoughts of J. Hector St. John de Crèvecœur: from soil values grow.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Ohio Constitutional Amendments Demand a 50% Voter Approval: Vote No on Issue 1

On Tuesday, August 8^th, vote no. For, a majority, 50%, approval by the voters of amendments to the Ohio Constitution should be maintained. America is a country governed by its people, one of majority rule.

We, through the U.S. Constitution and those of the states, acknowledge that a majority of a population of a country might be flawed and tyrannous. Consequently, America engages in a representative system of “checks and balances.” Our legislative bodies, executives and courts act to filter our laws and reforms. In no respect does America act under a system of direct democracy wherein the collective body of individuals determines the laws by which they are governed. With respect to the amendment of the Ohio Constitution, amendment proposals require extensive review by the Attorney General, Ballot Board or Secretary of State. All proposed amendments may be challenged in a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court.

With these checks and balances in place, we should encourage popular involvement and participation in American government, not place our legal development more and more out of reach. The Ohio Constitution is rarely amended. It is a truly difficult process, even by the majority vote of the electorate. The current constitutional requirement inspires communities and learning so that a voter may form opinions and express oneself at the polls. A sense of self and self-government are needed in light of rapidly developing technologies, such as artificial intelligence and digital assets. We should not dilute or remove the people from the process of law.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Featured

The Democracy and Science Equilibrium

(Originally published in Thinktank No. 45 (British Mensa Ltd., Wolverhampton, West Midlands, Eng., U.K.), Winter 2021, at 2-4.)

Science and technology could enable us to develop democracy and the common good as they evolve in complexity and achieve a greater standard of living. The history of our world arrives from progressive steps of scientific advancements and governmental policy reform that leapfrog and alternate one after another. The difference between these points has at times been extreme, such as, in the modern era, the destructive technology at Hiroshima followed by the humane and peaceful mitigating governmental reform and salvo of the United Nations.

Humans are lost in contradictions between scientific advancements and humane policy initiatives, awaiting the synthesis of the dialectic, fearing that the contradictions will perpetuate through history. A scientific view of the history of culture influences our interpretation and application of technology. In providing enhancements in materialism, technology should defer to democratic principles. Governmental policy and reform must measure and evaluate technological power in a manner that honors foremost the public and common good.

Human nature is both good and bad. The minds of men give rise to negative incidents. Freedom, justice, equity and other positive connotations of progress require a global democracy founded upon diplomacy and immigration. Society must ensure that science and technology do not overwhelm, transcend or overpower a global democratic government.

Neither chance nor happenstance determine scientific and technological developments apart from study and expertise. Humans are self-determining. Democracies are founded upon meritocratic competition and government by a natural aristocracy ruling over a majority of equals. We must develop a global future without repeating mistakes of the past and without allowing scientific and technological developments create mistakes of the future. Moral principles must govern our technological advancements. We must look beyond the public good, the good produced for the majority population, being in utilitarian thought the greatest good for the greatest number. We must look for the common good of all.

An increasingly higher standard of materialism produced by technological advancements achieves, or at least could achieve, a public good for the world over.

In looking to the future in view of the past, the public good must be coextensive with the common good and principles of individual and personal dignity. A global, meritocratic democracy is one of fairness and equality, a utopia of self-government and community participation. A utopia which may be within reach.

A global democracy requires global respect for individual humanity and a shared appreciation for different identities, whether they be cultural, racial, religious, ethnic, national, gender and or sexual orientation, etc. And, this requires a quest for the common good where governing institutions maintain a quality of living for all citizens.

The present global dissension should not allow individual identities transcend our fidelity to a global citizenship and equality under the rule of international law, the common good. Immigration of those in search of a free country is the basis of the American democratic experiment as well as many others.

Worldwide, individuals will always possess unique group identities that separate them. In as early as the beginning 1900s, global migration in behest of freedom, unity and justice was the source of discussion in international entertainment. As stated in The Melting Pot, written by British playwright Israel Zangwill, premiered to rave reviews by American President Theodore Roosevelt in Washington, D.C. in 1908, and then in London in 1909, individuals can amalgamate into a melting pot of citizens who maintain and express their pluralistic selves.

Within a New Melting Pot of the twenty-first century, each citizen would respect the culture of all. Modern democracy would provide that all cultures are neither preempted by government nor society so long as the cultures are respectful of each other and of democracy. Former colonial nations exist that are still fraught with violent, anarchical and technologically steeped governments. Powerful democracies should strive to bring about a global democracy based upon the commonality of human nature.

In a New Melting Pot, we should seek a new utopian social contract of a just society under a global democratic government by imagining that we, ourselves, do not know our respective future condition, our position in society, or our own self-interest. We then, in all countries, would seek laws and governing institutions that safeguard the position of the least well-off in society as that becomes our point of self-interest. For, social unrest occurs when a social contract is disregarded, and there appears to be no other means of effective popular expression.

The conquering of Afghanistan by the Taliban is a recent example. Once students of religion, the Taliban now strive for a brokering by foreign powers of an inclusive government. Yet to be seen is whether the Taliban social contract will be one solely of religious doctrine. Or whether, instead, the insurgence resulted because only their faith provided a source of belief and trust rather than the democracy they now seek.

Another example is the continuing abduction of African school children. Attacks upon children’s schools are attacks upon the basis of democracy: education. Such acts are by those feeling deeply uncared for in society, evoke attention and result in government for none.

Neither we nor our leaders should allow our pluralistic identities determine our decisions and opinions. Rather, in a democratic society we should participate in our political community and do so in a way that places the principles governing a republic above all else. The doctrines incumbent within our group identities must defer to these founding principles.

The continuum of political affiliations, from left to right, may freely express opinions in civil discussion and debate, the requirements of a democratic society. Democratic self-government and participation should be cultivated. Public participation should be facilitated by reasonable means. Many citizens do not know how to vote. Many nondemocratic countries lack knowledge in how a democracy could be constructed from their existing society and government.

The New Melting Pot requires public and private leaders who guide citizens in their ability to place a global citizenship above personal identities and who engage in policies and decisions that reflect the myriad of identities in society. The decision making of our private and public leadership should consider public opinion regarding life’s issues and concerns gleaned from civil and respectful public expression, encouraged and not ignored.

Diplomacy may be the only answer. We exist interdependently and no one is entirely responsible for a success or failure, a win or loss. A meritocratically governed democracy is to be respected by all.

Perhaps our first step toward globalization in the leapfrog dialectic is that of respect for one another. Respect in behest of life creates goodwill rather than destruction. And, it is difficult to assert destructive technology and governmental power against life one respects. An earnest understanding of one another is the foundation of the global public and common good and a source of integrity and dignity for all.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls