From 'Punishment' to 'Acceptance': SEC's 2% Discount Tears Open Compliance Gap for Stablecoins

比推Published on 2026-02-21Last updated on 2026-02-21

Abstract

This article discusses a significant policy shift by the U.S. SEC regarding the capital treatment of payment stablecoins held by broker-dealers. On February 19, the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets issued new guidance allowing broker-dealers to apply a 2% discount—rather than a punitive 100% haircut—to certain stablecoin holdings when calculating net capital requirements. This change aligns stablecoins with money market funds and other low-risk assets, making it financially viable for regulated entities to hold and use them. The move is seen as a major step toward integrating digital assets into mainstream finance. It follows the passage of the GENIUS Act in July 2025, which established a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The SEC’s guidance is designed to bridge the gap between existing rules and the new law, enabling broker-dealers to use stablecoins for settlement, trading, and tokenized securities without excessive capital penalties. The author highlights that this shift is part of a broader effort by the SEC to move away from enforcement-heavy regulation under former Chair Gary Gensler and toward a more structured, inclusive approach. The change is expected to encourage more institutional participation, improve liquidity, and support the use of stablecoins in cross-border payments and financial inclusion. However, challenges remain, including ongoing tensions between federal and state regulators and pending legislation to clarify the classifica...

Author: Tonya M. Evans

Compiled by: Golem

Original title: The 'Stablecoin Revolution' on the Balance Sheet: SEC Uses '2% Discount' to Tear Open a Gap for Digital Asset Compliance

On February 19, the Division of Trading and Markets of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document clarifying how broker-dealers should handle payment stablecoins under the net capital rule. Subsequently, SEC Crypto Assets Working Group Chair Hester Peirce immediately issued a statement titled "Just a 2% Haircut".

Peirce stated that SEC staff would not object if broker-dealers applied a "2% haircut" rather than a punitive 100% haircut to their proprietary positions in eligible payment stablecoins when calculating net capital.

While this may sound esoteric, this accounting adjustment could be one of the most impactful moves to practically integrate digital assets into the mainstream financial system since the SEC began softening its stance on cryptocurrency in early 2025.

Minimum Net Capital and Haircuts

To understand why, we first need to understand what a "haircut" means in the broker-dealer world.

Under Rule 15c3-1 of the Securities Exchange Act, broker-dealers must maintain a minimum net capital, or more precisely, a liquidity buffer to protect clients if the firm gets into trouble. When calculating this buffer, firms must apply "asset haircuts" to different assets on their books, reducing their reported value to reflect risk. Consequently, riskier or more volatile assets receive larger haircuts, while cash does not.

Previously, some broker-dealers self-imposed a 100% haircut on stablecoins, meaning these holdings were completely excluded from their capital calculations. The result was that the cost of holding stablecoins was prohibitively high, making it financially unsustainable for regulated intermediaries.

The 2% haircut now changes this calculation entirely, placing payment stablecoins on equal footing with money market funds holding similar underlying assets, such as U.S. Treasuries, cash, and short-term government bonds.

As Peirce pointed out, the reserve requirements for authorized stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act are actually stricter than the "eligible securities" requirements for registered money market funds, including government money market funds. In her view, given the actual backing assets of these instruments, a 100% haircut was overly harsh.

This is crucial because stablecoins are the "backbone" of on-chain transactions. They are the means by which value flows on the blockchain and the prudent engine that powers trading, settlement, and payments.

If broker-dealers cannot hold these tokens without draining their capital positions, they cannot effectively participate in tokenized securities markets, facilitate the creation of physical exchange-traded products (ETPs), or provide the integrated crypto and securities services that institutions increasingly demand.

Timely Announcement of the "2% Haircut" Statement

The timing of this "2% haircut" announcement is critical.

The GENIUS Act, signed by President Trump on July 18, 2025, created the first comprehensive federal payment stablecoin framework. The Act established reserve requirements, a licensing process, and a regulatory mechanism for stablecoin issuers, placing them under a regulatory framework that distinguishes payment stablecoins from other digital assets.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently implementing the application process for insured depository institutions to issue payment stablecoins through their subsidiaries. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also establishing its own framework. In short, federal regulators are racing against the clock to finalize key implementation rules before the July 2026 deadline.

Peirce's statement and its accompanying FAQ effectively bridge the gap between the legislative framework of the GENIUS Act and the SEC's own rulebook.

The definition of "payment stablecoin" in the FAQ is deliberately forward-looking: before the effective date of the GENIUS Act, it relies on existing state-level regulatory standards, such as state money transmitter licenses, requirements consistent with the reserve requirements stipulated in the Act, and monthly attestation reports from CPA firms. After the GENIUS Act takes effect, this definition will transition to the Act's own standards.

This two-track approach means broker-dealers do not have to wait for the full implementation of the GENIUS Act to start treating stablecoins as legitimate trading instruments.

Peirce also indicated that the guidance is just the beginning. She invited market participants to comment on how to formally amend Rule 15c3-1 to incorporate payment stablecoins and sought input on other SEC rules that may need updating. This open request for feedback suggests the Commission is considering more than just a one-off FAQ, but rather a more systematic integration of stablecoins into its regulatory system.

Policy Impacting Regulatory Precision

Since the establishment of the Crypto Assets Working Group in January 2025 under the leadership of then-Acting Chairman Mark Uyeda, the SEC has been systematically and gradually moving away from the enforcement-led regulatory approach of former Chairman Gary Gensler's era.

For example, the SEC issued guidance on broker-dealer custody of crypto assets, clearly stating that crypto asset securities do not need to meet control requirements in paper form, allowing broker-dealers to assist in the creation and redemption of physical ETPs, and explaining how alternative trading systems (ATS) can support crypto pair trading.

Furthermore, the FAQ page containing today's stablecoin guidance has evolved into a comprehensive resource covering everything from transfer agent obligations to the protection (or lack thereof) of non-security crypto assets by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). For the traditional financial services industry, the practical and direct impact of these measures is significant:

Banks and broker-dealers evaluating whether to enter the digital asset space can now get a clearer picture of how their stablecoin holdings will be treated for capital purposes.
Companies previously hesitant due to the operational cost of maintaining significant positions (which ultimately had a net value of zero on the balance sheet) can now reconsider.
Custodians, clearing companies, and ATS operators exploring tokenized securities settlement now know that the settlement asset (stablecoins) will not be seen as a regulatory burden.

The follow-on effects for everyday investors, especially those historically underserved by traditional financial services, are equally important. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has noted that stablecoins have proven their utility in cross-border payments, savings vehicles in emerging markets, and broader channels for financial participation.

When regulated intermediaries can hold and transact in stablecoins without incurring massive capital penalties, more of these services can be offered through trusted, regulated channels, rather than through unregulated offshore platforms where consumer risks are higher.

Federal vs. State Friction Continues

Of course, this does not exist in a vacuum, and friction between federal and state governments persists. The implementation timeline for the GENIUS Act is very tight. State regulators must complete certification of their regulatory frameworks by July 2026.

Consumer fraud protection concerns raised by figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James remain unresolved. Interaction between federal and state regulation will inevitably create friction. Furthermore, broader market structure legislation aimed at clarifying which digital assets are securities and which are commodities is still pending in the Senate.

Therefore, the 2% haircut, however minor or obscure it may seem, represents something deeper: federal securities regulators are actively adapting existing rules to include stablecoins as functional financial instruments, rather than merely marginalizing them.

Whether this adaptation can keep pace with the market, and whether the implementation of the GENIUS Act can deliver on its promises, remains to be seen. But in the journey from regulatory hostility to regulatory integration, it is this technical, often unseen work that determines whether policy translates into practice.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group: https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original article link: https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7613536

Bitcoin ETFs Rout Extends To June With $1.72 Billion Net Outflows In First Week

U.S. Bitcoin spot ETFs extended their downturn into early June, recording net outflows of approximately $1.72 billion from June 1-5 following a poor May. This trend reflects sustained bearish sentiment, with only one day of positive net inflows in the past 15 trading sessions. BlackRock's IBIT led the withdrawals with $1.34 billion in outflows, while most other major funds also saw redemptions. Total ETF net assets fell over 20% to $75.12 billion. In parallel, Ethereum spot ETFs saw net outflows of $168 million, indicating investor caution amid macroeconomic uncertainty. Bitcoin's price hovered around $61,592 at press time.

bitcoinist3h ago

Bitcoin ETFs Rout Extends To June With $1.72 Billion Net Outflows In First Week

bitcoinist3h ago

Zcash Suffers Historic Collapse As Billions Vanish From Market Value

Zcash, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, suffered a historic collapse in price, losing over 50% of its value in 24 hours and erasing billions from its market cap. The dramatic sell-off was triggered by the disclosure of a major vulnerability in the Zcash Orchard privacy pool that had remained undetected since May 2022. A security researcher, using AI, developed a proof-of-concept to generate counterfeit ZEC. While the bug was patched by June 2, Zcash's privacy design makes it impossible to verify if any fake coins were minted before the fix, fueling market panic and uncertainty. This event highlights the trade-off between privacy and transparency. In response, Shielded Labs is exploring a network upgrade to allow supply verification. Despite the crisis, proponents argue that the discovery by world-class security researchers demonstrates the network's commitment to proactive hardening and resilience.

bitcoinist7h ago

Zcash Suffers Historic Collapse As Billions Vanish From Market Value

bitcoinist7h ago

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

**Title: Has the "Digital Gold" Narrative for Bitcoin Failed?** The article argues that Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative remains valid despite a recent sharp price decline (from a peak near $126k in Oct 2025 to briefly under $61k in Feb 2026). It presents a long-term investment framework based on three core points: **1. Viewing Bitcoin as an Asset:** Bitcoin is presented as a superior potential store of value compared to gold. Key arguments are its absolute scarcity (21 million cap), superior portability, and transparent auditability via its public ledger. While acknowledging its current use in early, volatile stages (~3-4% global adoption), the author draws parallels to the early, disruptive phases of the internet and e-commerce. **2. Understanding the Recent Downturn:** The current ~50% correction is framed as a predictable, consensus-driven cycle following its post-halving peak (the 2024 halving preceded the Oct 2025 high). A crucial factor is a historic "changing of hands": the influx of new institutional buyers via ETFs allowed early, low-cost holders (miners, OG believers) to take profits. The author notes that while severe, Bitcoin's historical drawdowns (e.g., 93% in 2011, 77% in 2021-22) have been progressively smaller, suggesting maturing holder structure and decreasing volatility over time. **3. The Long-Term Perspective:** The long-term thesis hinges on Bitcoin capturing a portion of gold's market value. With Bitcoin's market cap at ~$1.4 trillion (at $70k) versus gold's ~$20 trillion, significant upside potential exists if the "digital gold" narrative is partially realized. However, the author strongly cautions that short-term risks remain, the bottom is unpredictable, and high volatility is inherent. The real risk is not Bitcoin failing but poor personal position management (over-leverage, wrong capital) and a lack of deep understanding, which can force investors out during severe downturns. The conclusion uses Amazon's 95% crash post-2000 dot-com bubble and subsequent 42x recovery as an analogy. The ultimate question is not if Bitcoin's price will rise, but if an investor's strategy and conviction can withstand the volatility to see the long-term play out. The recent divergence (gold up, Bitcoin down) is posed not as a narrative failure, but as potential evidence of this ongoing, painful transition from a speculative asset to a mainstream allocation.

marsbit7h ago

Has the 'Digital Gold' Narrative for BTC Failed?

marsbit7h ago

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

The article discusses Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, its recent price drop, and long-term outlook through the perspective of "Jason". It argues the narrative is not a failure but that Bitcoin represents a superior, new asset class due to its fixed supply (21 million), portability, and auditability. The piece compares its current ~3-4% global adoption rate to early internet/e-commerce, suggesting significant growth potential. Regarding the 2025-2026 price decline (from ~$126k to briefly under $61k), the author views it as a predictable, consensus-driven sell-off within Bitcoin's ~4-year cycle post-halving, exacerbated by a major "handover" from early, low-cost holders to new institutional buyers via ETFs. A key observation is that historical peak-to-trough drawdowns have lessened over time (e.g., 93% in 2011 to ~50% in 2026), indicating maturing volatility as holder structure changes. For the long term, the author uses a simple framework: Bitcoin's total market cap (~$1.4T at $70k) is only about 7% of gold's (~$20T). Even capturing 30-50% of gold's value would imply substantial upside. However, the article strongly cautions against viewing this as investment advice, emphasizing extreme volatility and the critical importance of risk management, position sizing, and deep fundamental understanding to survive severe drawdowns. It concludes by drawing a parallel to Amazon's 95% crash in 2000 and subsequent 42x recovery, stressing that the key is surviving market cycles to realize long-term potential.

链捕手7h ago

Has BTC's 'Digital Gold' Narrative Failed?

链捕手7h ago

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

"From Code to Cognition: The Evolution of Robot Brains" The journey of robotic intelligence has shifted dramatically from manually coded systems to AI-driven brains. For decades, robots relied on layered software stacks—perception, state estimation, planning, control—each handcrafted. While predictable, they lacked adaptability. The 2010s saw deep learning revolutionize perception (e.g., object detection) and control (via reinforcement learning), but learned skills remained narrow. The arrival of Large Language Models (LLMs) marked a turning point. LLMs acted as high-level planners, interpreting natural language instructions and generating sequences of actions for traditional robotic systems to execute. However, true integration came with Visual-Language-Action (VLA) models, which fused vision, language, and motion prediction into a single network. Pioneered by models like RT-2 and open-source projects like OpenVLA, VLAs enable robots to reason and act directly from visual input and commands. The most advanced humanoid robots now employ a "dual-brain" architecture: a slow-thinking, large VLA (System 2) for reasoning and planning, and a fast-reacting, small network (System 1) for high-frequency motion control, sometimes with an even lower-level System 0 for balance. This split balances cognition with the physics of real-time movement. Computation is split between onboard hardware (e.g., NVIDIA Jetson) for safety-critical control loops and cloud/edge servers for non-critical tasks like learning and interfaces. A crucial driver is the open-source ecosystem—models like GR00T and OpenVLA allow startups to build upon pre-trained brains and fine-tune them with their own data, accelerating development. Despite progress, current systems struggle with recovery from errors, sample inefficiency, and long-horizon tasks. This has spurred the rise of **World Models**—neural networks that predict the consequences of actions. By simulating possible futures before acting (like NVIDIA Cosmos or Meta V-JEPA), robots can plan, recover, and generalize better. This represents the next frontier: shifting intelligence from learned reactions to an internal model of physics and cause-and-effect. The field is rapidly evolving. While not yet at its "ChatGPT moment," the convergence of cheaper hardware, scalable simulation, and world models points toward robots that are increasingly capable, adaptive, and useful. The question is shifting from "what can robots do?" to "what *should* they do?"

marsbit8h ago

From Code to Cognition: A Ten-Thousand-Word Guide to the Evolution of the Robot Brain

marsbit8h ago

Trading

Spot

Futures