Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Comparison of Regulatory Policies of the European Union in the Crypto-Asset Market Regulation, the United States in the Innovation Act of 2025, and Iranian Law in Dealing with Smart Financial Contracts (with Emphasis on Stablecoins)

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
Nahid Parsa 1
Seyed Hsan Hoseinimoghadam 2
1 PostDoc
2 Associate Professor, Department of Private Law, University of Mazandaran
10.22034/law.2026.2085937.1765
Abstract
The stablecoin market, now valued at over $250 billion, has grown within a legal vacuum that disproportionately benefits issuers at the expense of holders. This study presents the first comparative analysis of private law regulation of stablecoins across the European Union (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), the United States (GENIUS Act 2025), and the Iranian legal system.



Examining the practices of major issuers reveals three critical problems: asymmetric terms of service that unilaterally favor platforms, ambiguity surrounding digital property rights, and inefficient redemption systems that hinder timely conversion of stablecoins to fiat currency. While leading companies consistently refuse to provide adequate protections, regulatory approaches in Europe and America have evolved along different but complementary paths. The EU's MiCA emphasizes ongoing behavioral obligations and transparency requirements, while the U.S. GENIUS Act focuses on holder protection in bankruptcy proceedings and priority status over other creditors.



The fundamental questions are: How do the legal systems of these three jurisdictions address these challenges? What are the key similarities and differences in their approaches? The findings reveal that the absence of a coherent legal framework in Iran significantly increases legal risks for stablecoin holders. However, the complementary approaches of Europe (behavioral supervision) and America (bankruptcy protection) can provide suitable models for Iranian legislators. Iran can design an efficient domestic model by combining MiCA's behavioral requirements with the GENIUS Act's bankruptcy protections, thereby safeguarding holders while fostering healthy market development. This hybrid approach would balance technological flexibility with protective mandates, attracting foreign investment while creating a secure platform for cross-border transactions and the growth of Iran's digital economy within a robust legal framework that protects all stakeholders. Such a framework would also address the unique challenges of the Iranian financial system, including international sanctions and limited access to global markets, while providing legal certainty for domestic and international participants alike. The proposed model offers practical solutions for lawmakers seeking to regulate this rapidly evolving sector without stifling innovation, ultimately contributing to financial stability and consumer protection in the digital asset ecosystem.
Keywords
Crypto-Asset Market Regulation (MiCAR) (European Union)
Private Law
Regulatory Governance
Stablecoin
Stablecoin Innovation Act of 2025 (United States)
Subjects
1-     Abdali, M., & Tafreshi, M. E. (2004). A study of illegal contracts in French, English and Iranian law. Comparative Law Research, 37, 1–23. (in Persian)
2-     Adrian, T., & Mancini-Griffoli, T. (2021). The rise of digital money. IMF Working Paper.
3-     Akbari, H., & Amiri, M. (2017). Scenarios facing the global economy in confronting cryptocurrencies. Tehran: Deputy for Economic Affairs, Office of Futures Studies. (in Persian)
4-     Amiri Qa'em-Maqami, A. (1999). Law of obligations (Vol. 1). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
5-     Ansari, M. (1415 AH). Al-Makasib (Vol. 5). Qom: World Congress Commemorating Sheikh Ansari. (in Arabic)
6-     Antonopoulos, A. M. (2019). Mastering Ethereum. O'Reilly Media.
7-     Auer, R., & Frost, J. (2024). CBDCs vs. stablecoins: The battle for monetary sovereignty. BIS Quarterly Review.
8-     Bruce, K., Odinet, C. K., & Tosato, A. (2025). The private law of stablecoins. Arizona State Law Journal, 54, 1073.
9-     Bullmann, D., et al. (2022). The collapse of TerraUSD. ECB Occasional Paper Series No. 302.
10- Chohan, U. W. (2021). Stablecoins: Risks and regulation. Critical Blockchain Research Initiative.
11- Christophorou, C., et al. (2025). Bankruptcy priority for stablecoin holders: A blessing or a curse? Yale Journal on Regulation.
12- Circle. (2024). Circle terms of service. Retrieved from https://www.circle.com/en/legal/user-agreement
13- Circle. (2024). USDC terms. Retrieved from https://www.circle.com/en/legal/usdc-terms
14- Circle Internet Group, Inc. (2025). Form S-1 registration statement. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
15- Ebadi, M. A. (2024). Commercial law. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh Publications. (in Persian)
16- Emami, S. H. (2007). Civil law (Vol. 1). Tehran: Islamiyyah Publications. (in Persian)
17- Fahlenbrach, R., & Frattaroli, M. (2024). Stablecoins and systemic risk: Evidence from 2023–2024. Journal of Financial Stability, 68, 101–125.
18- Fahy, R., et al. (2022). The evolution of stablecoins. Journal of Digital Banking.
19- Financial Stability Board. (2022). Assessment of risks to financial stability from crypto-assets.
20- Gelsi, S. (2025, June 15). Circle IPO soars 45% on first day of trading. MarketWatch.
21- Gilespie, K. (1984). The tripartite relationship. Praeger.
22- Gorton, G., & Zhang, J. (2025). Stablecoin runs: Evidence from USDC and USDT. Journal of Finance.
23- Gudgeon, L., et al. (2020). The decentralized financial crisis. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy.
24- Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) of 2025, H.R. ___, 117th Cong.
25- Hall, P. (1997). Meta-power and social organization. Symbolic Interaction, 20(2), 397–418.
26- Harati, M. (2025). Conflict between the principle of freedom of contract and public order requirements in private and governmental contracts in French and Iranian law. Biannual Journal of Research and Development in Private Law, 4(4), 351–381. Doi: 10.22034/jpl.2025.2070694.1238 (in Persian)
27- Hasanzadeh, S. A., et al. (2023). A comparative study of the grounds for regulating unfair standard contracts. Legal Studies, 15(1), 335–356. (in Persian)
28- Izanloo, M. (2011). Limitation and exclusion clauses in contracts (3rd ed.). Tehran: Sherkat-e Enteshar. (in Persian)
29- Jafari, M., et al. (2021). The status of unfair contracts in Imami jurisprudence compared to unfair terms in Iranian electronic commerce law. Journal of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law Research, 66(17), 71–92. (in Persian)
30- Karami, S. (2015). Public order as an instrument for judicial control of unfair clauses. Journal of Judiciary Law, 91, 105–132. (in Persian)
31- Katouzian, N. (2005). Contract interpretation. Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, 7, 277–308. (in Persian)
32- Katouzian, N. (2009). Civil law in the current order. Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
33- Katouzian, N. (2023). Non-contractual obligations (5th ed.). Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh. (in Persian)
34- Klages-Mundt, A., & Minca, A. (2024). Algorithmic stablecoins after Terra: A post-mortem analysis. ACM Advances in Financial Technologies, 1–25.
35- Klages-Mundt, A., et al. (2020). Stablecoins 2.0. Proceedings of ACM Advances in Financial Technologies.
36- Latham & Watkins LLP. (2025, July). The GENIUS Act of 2025: Stablecoin legislation adopted in the US.
37- Levitin, A. J. (2025). The perils of over-protection in stablecoin regulation. Harvard Law Review Forum.
38- Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR), Regulation (EU) 2023/1114.
39- Mohaqqeq Damad, S. M. (2008). Rules of jurisprudence (Civil section). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
40- Morgan Stanley. (2024). Stablecoins could change how money moves.
41- Mousavi Khoei, S. A. (1409 AH). Mabani Urwat al-Wuthqa (Vol. 2). Qom: Manshurat Madrasa Dar al-Ilm. (in Arabic)
42- Nakhjavani, A., & Vaziri, M. (2022). Legal status of stablecoins in Iran and the European Union. Legal Research, 21(52), 1–14. (in Persian)
43- Odinet, C. K., & Tosato, A. (2025). Regulating stablecoins: Comparing MiCAR and the GENIUS Act. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.
44- Qa'em-Maqam Farahani, M. H. (2020). Commercial law: Bankruptcy and liquidation (10th ed.). Tehran: Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
45- Qanavati, J. (2010). The principle of freedom of contract: Unfair contracts and clauses. Islamic Studies Quarterly (Jurisprudence and Principles), 42(85/2), 135–157. (in Persian)
46- Reuters. (2021, May 19). Binance blocks Iranian traders after U.S. sanctions pressure.
47- Rostami, M. Z., & Rostami, M. H. (2021). Analysis of the nature, effects and economic and jurisprudential challenges of Bitcoin. Islamic Economic Knowledge, 12(24), 231–250. (in Persian)
48- Shahidi, M., & Barikloo, A. (2002). Non-competition agreements. Nameh-ye Mofid, 29, 5–22. (in Persian)
49- Soleimani-Pour, M. M., et al. (2017). A jurisprudential examination of virtual currency. Islamic Financial Research, 6(2), 167–192. (in Persian)
50- Sotoudeh Tehrani, H. (2024). Commercial law: Bankruptcy and liquidation of bankrupt affairs (Vol. 4, 23rd ed.). Tehran: Dadgostar Publishing. (in Persian)
51- Tether. (2025). Relevant information document. Retrieved from https://tether.to/legal/
52- Tether. (2025). Risk disclosure statement. Retrieved from https://tether.to/legal/
53- Tether. (2025). Terms of service. Retrieved from https://tether.to/legal/
54- Waller, C. J. (2025, March). The future of money and payments. Speech at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
55- Zetzsche, D. A., & Arner, D. W. (2024). MiCAR vs. GENIUS Act: A comparative analysis. Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, 7, 112–150.
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 30 June 2026