The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which supervises the US banking sector, has formally outlined its approach to stablecoin regulation. The proposal cements the FDIC’s role under the National US Stablecoin Innovation Act (GENIUS), which came into force last year. The draft framework largely mirrors recommendations made by its counterpart, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which introduced similar proposals in February.
Key details of the proposed regulation
According to the draft rules, the FDIC would oversee any US-based deposit institution that issues stablecoins via its subsidiaries. The proposal introduces minimum standards for capital, liquidity, and asset custody for these organizations. The FDIC indicated that these criteria are still under discussion, stating it will continue to seek feedback from the public and industry stakeholders. Over the next 60 days, a comprehensive list of 144 questions included in the proposal will be open for public consultation before any final decision is made.
The new regulatory push—the second round of proposals following an earlier set released in December—focuses specifically on the requirements banks must meet in order to issue stablecoins. Final rules remain subject to change, as the framework itself is not yet set in stone.
Industry debates and the political process
One point the FDIC made clear is that traditional deposit insurance coverage will not extend to stablecoins. That means accounts holding crypto assets cannot rely on the bank-backed deposit guarantee. However, for bank-issued tokens used specifically for payments and meeting the legal definition of deposits, existing regulations will continue to apply.
The OCC’s earlier recommendation, which discussed reward programs tied to stablecoins, has remained a hot topic in the industry. Market participants are debating whether such programs—especially those involving third parties or promising yield—can be part of compliant business models. The FDIC emphasized that institutions issuing stablecoins cannot claim that simply holding or transacting with a stablecoin will earn customers a return. However, there is an emerging view within the agency that appropriately structured reward programs may not necessarily breach the law.
Another key point underlined by the FDIC concerns capital adequacy and operational safeguards. The agency stresses that stablecoin issuers must retain sufficient capital to manage risks inherent to their business model. In addition to these capital measures, a separate buffer tied to operating expenses is also under consideration to bolster operational resilience.
Meanwhile, the Digital Asset Market Transparency Act—currently under review in the Senate—proposes several changes to the legal framework governing stablecoins. In both the banking and crypto sectors, advocacy groups have been locked in debate for months, particularly over the regulation of yield-bearing stablecoins. While congressional members have expressed optimism that a consensus is within reach, a final vote has yet to be scheduled.
Institutions involved in drafting these rules—including the US Treasury, OCC, and other market regulators—are currently dominated by Republican appointees. Observers note that, in the absence of new Democratic appointments from the White House, there has been less vocal opposition or hesitation in the regulatory process than might have been expected.
Despite the ongoing discussions and differing viewpoints, the GENIUS Act itself has garnered strong bipartisan backing as it moves through Congress, with lawmakers from both parties signaling broad support for its provisions.
