Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko is reportedly arguing for a base-layer stablecoin that can only be frozen with court authorization. The post was not directly retrieved in this research set, so the claim remains partially verified and narrower than freeze standards documented elsewhere in the brief (https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/312128382104034).
What Is Verified So Far
According to an unconfirmed Binance Square report, Yakovenko said dollar-pegged stablecoins should be frozen only under a U.S. court order. In plain language, that points to a stablecoin whose freeze rule sits in core settlement logic rather than a broader set of issuer-triggered legal requests.
Circle’s USDC Terms say Circle may refuse, freeze, seize, or redeem USDC when a valid government legal order requires it. In the brief, that is broader than the reported court-only model because it does not limit action to judges alone.
Crypto Briefing reported that Circle blacklisted 16 wallets on March 23, 2026 only when directed by law enforcement or court order, making the USDC dispute an example of freeze authority in use. In a related X post, Taylor Monahan said Circle freezes funds when a U.S. federal court signs off.
It’s always been this way for Circle.
If you can convince a US federal court to sign off on a freeze then the funds will be frozen.
This most often comes up when Circle REFUSES to freeze uncommingled stolen funds that come direct from the victim.
Their non-decision making…
— Tay 💖 (@tayvano_) March 24, 2026
That same episode also drew a challenge from ZachXBT, who argued the sealed New York civil case offered no basis to freeze the business addresses involved. His objection shows why a court-only threshold is seen as tighter than ordinary issuer compliance practice.
The NY civil case is sealed and they have provided absolutely ZERO basis to freeze all of these business addresses.
Aaron Nathan from Willkie Farr is the unknown plaintiffs lawyer.
The expert witness is liable.
The judge is liable.
Circle is liable.In my 5+ yrs of…
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) March 25, 2026
The comparison becomes sharper in the current GENIUS Act text, which defines a lawful order as a written directive from a court, government agency, or self-regulatory organization to seize, freeze, burn, or block transfers of payment stablecoins. On that text alone, the reported Yakovenko position is narrower than both Circle’s framework and the bill’s standard.
Why It Matters on Solana
For Solana, the issue reaches beyond quote-driven crypto news because DeFiLlama lists the chain’s total value locked at about $12.63 billion. That scale makes stablecoin freeze logic an infrastructure question, not the same kind of story as capital-flow coverage like BTC Fund Inflows Turn Positive as $80K Test Looms, U.S. Bitcoin ETF Sees 3,353 BTC Inflow, Ethereum ETF Adds 29,225 ETH, or rollout coverage like Pharos Network and OKX Wallet Launch ‘Stake Before the Stake’ Event.
Solana total value locked
$12.63B
The visual package tied to the brief also uses CoinGecko’s Solana page to show a market cap near $47.69 billion, reinforcing that the freeze-authority debate is unfolding on a network with large dollar exposure rather than on a marginal chain.
Solana market capitalization
$47.69B
The narrow takeaway is that a single retrievable report attributed a court-authorization-only freeze view to Yakovenko, while Circle’s published USDC terms and the pending GENIUS Act text support broader legal triggers. Until Yakovenko’s original post is directly available, that policy gap is better verified than the exact wording itself.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
Be the first to comment