A stablecoin's value peg is evolving from a simple branding issue to a complex legal question. In a crisis, the focus will shift from whether reserves exist to who can access them and under what conditions. The March 2023 incident involving USDC highlighted this concern when part of its reserves became inaccessible at Silicon Valley Bank, causing the stablecoin to trade below its peg. Regulatory responses, particularly from the US and EU, aim to clarify how stablecoins operate under stress, with the GENIUS Act in the US tightening reserve requirements and banning interest on stablecoin holdings, while the EU's MiCA regulation introduces specific legal classifications and redemption duties. These regulations create a two-tier market for stablecoins. Tier-1 stablecoins will be tightly regulated, offering clear redemption rights and high-quality reserves, effectively functioning like cash. Tier-2 tokens may still trade at $1 in stable conditions but could behave like risk assets during market turmoil due to less stringent oversight and potential yield offerings. The GENIUS Act emphasizes a separation between payment systems and investment products, while MiCA aims to define stablecoins and their redemption rights, reflecting differing regulatory philosophies between the US and Europe. A key unresolved issue is the concept of "multi-issuance," where a stablecoin brand might be issued by multiple entities across different jurisdictions. In a financial panic, this could lead to overwhelming demand for redemption in the jurisdiction with the strongest legal protections, risking the stability of reserves. As the regulatory environment evolves, a clear framework for evaluating stablecoins based on their legal structure and liquidity under stress is emerging. This shift signals a significant change in how stablecoins are perceived and regulated, moving from a technological to a legal framework that ultimately determines their survival.