The GENIUS Act was signed into law on July 18, 2025 and establishes a federal framework for “payment stablecoin” issuers, so its actual requirements are now clear.(en.wikipedia.org) Comparing those to Sacks’s prediction:

1. “All the stablecoin companies will have to operate in the United States” – The Act does not require every stablecoin issuer to be U.S.-based. It explicitly forbids foreign issuers from being licensed as U.S. permitted payment stablecoin issuers, but still allows U.S. digital asset service providers to offer some foreign-issued payment stablecoins if the foreign issuer is under a “comparable” non‑U.S. regime, registers for monitoring by the OCC, and holds sufficient reserves in the U.S. for U.S. customers, among other conditions.(debevoise.com) Foreign issuers can continue operating abroad and, if they meet these conditions, can still access the U.S. market. So it is incorrect to say that all stablecoin companies must operate in the U.S.; the law creates a U.S.-jurisdiction gate for access to the U.S. market, not a universal U.S.-location requirement.

2. “They’ll be subjected to quarterly audits” – The statute and regulatory analyses describe monthly reserve reporting with independent attestations and annual audited financial statements for large issuers, not quarterly audits. Issuers must publish a monthly reserve report (outstanding coins and reserve composition), with prior months’ reports audited by a registered public accounting firm, and issuers over certain size thresholds must produce annually audited GAAP financials.(debevoise.com) Commentators even note that the Act rejects traditional quarterly cadences in favor of monthly oversight for stablecoins.(theregreview.org) So the “quarterly audits” detail is specifically wrong.

3. “Every stablecoin … fully reserved or backed up by a dollar in a U.S. bank account” – The Act requires at least 1:1 reserves in specified high‑quality, U.S.‑dollar‑denominated liquid assets (U.S. currency and central bank reserves, FDIC‑insured bank deposits, short‑term U.S. Treasuries, Treasury repos, certain government money market funds, and tokenized versions of these).(debevoise.com) That is broader than “a dollar in a U.S. bank account” (it explicitly includes short‑term Treasuries, repos, and government MMFs), though directionally similar. More importantly, these rules apply to permitted U.S. payment stablecoins and qualifying foreign payment stablecoins offered in the U.S., not to every stablecoin globally or to all types of crypto tokens (algorithmic or non‑payment stablecoins are outside this core regime).(debevoise.com) So we will not literally “know that every stablecoin that’s been issued is fully reserved”; we will only have that assurance—via required disclosures and attestations—for the regulated subset within the Act’s perimeter.

4. Timing (“once the Act is in force and implemented”) – The law sets deferred and phased effective dates: it becomes effective the earlier of 18 months after enactment or 120 days after implementing regulations, and some prohibitions (e.g., on unlicensed U.S. issuers via intermediaries) don’t fully bite until years later.(debevoise.com) But regardless of that timing, the content of the eventual regime is already fixed in the statute and does not match Sacks’s description on the key points above.

Because two central elements of the prediction—universal U.S. operation for all stablecoin companies and a quarterly audit requirement—conflict with the actual text and structure of the GENIUS Act, and the claim about “every stablecoin” being backed by a dollar in a U.S. bank account overstates the law’s scope and narrows its allowed reserve types, the prediction is best classified as wrong, not merely incomplete or too early to judge.