Stablecoin Rules Face 144 Questions In New FDIC Proposal

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-09Last updated on 2026-04-09

Abstract

The FDIC has proposed a new regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers, giving the public 60 days to respond to its 144 specific questions. The rules would set standards for reserves, redemptions, capital, and risk management for over 2,700 FDIC-supervised institutions, implementing the GENIUS Act signed in July 2025. A key point is that while the reserves backing stablecoins would be insured, the stablecoin holders themselves would not be covered by federal deposit insurance, as explicitly barred by the law. The FDIC argues the rules will still benefit users by ensuring issuers meet stricter standards. This proposal is part of a broader regulatory effort, with the OCC running a parallel process for other institutions.

The public has 60 days to weigh in. That’s how much time the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is giving Americans to respond to its newly proposed framework for regulating stablecoin issuers — a plan built around 144 specific questions the agency wants answered before it finalizes anything.

A Framework Built On Reserve And Risk Standards

The FDIC’s board voted this week to put forward rules that would set standards for reserves, redemptions, capital requirements, risk management, and custody practices for coin issuers operating under its watch.

The proposal applies to FDIC-supervised banks and savings institutions — more than 2,700 of them — and is tied to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, better known as the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law last July.

Image: Mullooly Asset Management

The law handed the FDIC formal authority over transaction activity inside the institutions it already supervises. Full implementation is scheduled for January 18, 2027, unless the rules take effect earlier.

This is the agency’s second move to put the GENIUS Act into practice. Back in December, the FDIC put forward a separate plan to set up an application process for insured depository institutions wanting to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. Tuesday’s announcement builds on that earlier step.

The Coverage Gap Stablecoin Users Should Know About

Here’s the part that may surprise some holders. While the reserves that back a stablecoin would be insured under the proposed rules, the people actually holding those stablecoins would not be.

Bitcoin is now trading at $71,941. Chart: TradingView

The FDIC said extending deposit insurance directly to stablecoin holders would conflict with the text of the GENIUS Act itself, which explicitly bars payment stablecoins from being covered by federal deposit insurance.

The agency acknowledged the limitation but argued the rules would still benefit everyday users. A more tightly regulated environment, officials said, means stablecoin holders get stronger assurances that the issuers behind their tokens are being held to serious regulatory standards — even if a federal safety net doesn’t cover them directly.

Image: TransFi

A Bigger Regulatory Picture Taking Shape

The FDIC is not working alone. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is running its own parallel effort to bring the GENIUS Act to life. Its reach goes further — covering national bank subsidiaries and certain nonbank stablecoin issuers that fall outside the FDIC’s jurisdiction.

Featured image from Unsplash, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is the main purpose of the FDIC's newly proposed framework for stablecoin issuers?

AThe main purpose is to set regulatory standards for stablecoin issuers, including requirements for reserves, redemptions, capital, risk management, and custody practices for FDIC-supervised institutions.

QHow many specific questions does the FDIC want answered before finalizing its stablecoin rules, and how long does the public have to respond?

AThe FDIC has put forward 144 specific questions and is giving the public 60 days to respond to the proposed framework.

QUnder the proposed rules, are the reserves backing a stablecoin insured, and are the stablecoin holders themselves insured?

AThe reserves backing a stablecoin would be insured under the proposed rules, but the stablecoin holders themselves would not be covered by federal deposit insurance.

QWhich act is the FDIC's proposed stablecoin framework tied to, and when is its full implementation scheduled?

AThe framework is tied to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), and its full implementation is scheduled for January 18, 2027, unless it takes effect earlier.

QWhich other federal agency is working on a parallel effort to implement the GENIUS Act, and who does its rules cover?

AThe Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is running a parallel effort, and its rules cover national bank subsidiaries and certain nonbank stablecoin issuers outside the FDIC's jurisdiction.

Related Reads

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit1h ago

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit1h ago

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

In 2026, a historic shift occurred in AI as major cloud providers' inference spending surpassed training spending for the first time, signaling a move from "building large models" to "using large models." This shifts the core challenge from computing power to the "memory wall"—the bottleneck of data movement (model weights, activations, KV Cache) between external DRAM and processors, where energy and latency from data transfer far exceed computation itself. Companies like Nvidia face GPU idle time due to bandwidth limits. In contrast, Cerebras Systems adopts a radical "wafer-scale" approach with its Wafer-Scale Engine (WSE). Instead of cutting a silicon wafer into many chips, Cerebras uses almost the entire wafer as one massive chip (WSE-3). This design provides 44GB of on-chip SRAM, delivering memory bandwidth thousands of times higher than traditional HBM (e.g., 21 PB/s vs. Nvidia B200). For LLM inference, weights are streamed layer-by-layer from external MemoryX storage to the chip, avoiding HBM bottlenecks. This results in token generation speeds 1.5–5 times faster than Nvidia's B200 in some models and significant advantages in first-token latency and long-context tasks. Additionally, Cerebras's architecture offers much lower interconnect power consumption (0.15 pJ/bit vs. GPU's ~10 pJ/bit). However, Cerebras faces challenges: SRAM scaling has slowed with advanced nodes, limiting future capacity gains; the chip requires specialized liquid cooling and custom software stacks; and its external I/O bandwidth (150 GB/s) is low compared to NVLink, hindering multi-system scaling for very large models. Competition is intensifying. Major players are pursuing three paths: 1) Developing proprietary inference ASICs (e.g., Google TPU, Microsoft Maia), 2) Leveraging advanced packaging (e.g., TSMC's SoW) to democratize wafer-scale-like integration, potentially eroding Cerebras's process advantage within a few years, and 3) Exploring optical interconnects for ultimate bandwidth. Commercially, Cerebras is transitioning from a hardware vendor to a service provider, facing the immense challenge of building high-power, specialized data centers to meet large contracts (e.g., 250MW/year from 2026–2028). In conclusion, the AI inference era presents a fundamental architectural trade-off. Cerebras opts for extreme physical optimization for low-latency, single-task performance, while Nvidia prioritizes versatility and massive cluster throughput. The path forward remains uncertain, with technology and business models still evolving in the race toward advanced AI.

marsbit1h ago

Crossing the 'Memory Wall': The Wafer-Level Revolution and Computing Power Routes in the AI Inference Era

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

**Title: Has Bitcoin's Rebound Ended, Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?** **Summary:** Bitcoin's price has declined by 13% this week, signaling a potential return to late-stage bear market conditions. The price fell to around $67k, positioned between the Realized Price and Realized Cap Weighted Average. For the first time since early 2022, the Short-Term Holder cost basis has dropped below this key average, confirming a hallmark of late-cycle bear markets. Profitability metrics have collapsed sharply. The 7-day average of the Realized Profit/Loss ratio plummeted from a local high of 3.16 to 0.29, mirroring the February panic sell-off. Critically, the 90-day average never breached the threshold of 2, indicating the recent rally to $82k was a bear market bounce, not a structural shift. Realized losses surged to $1.35 billion daily, with $770 million coming from Long-Term Holders selling at a loss. This accelerating redistribution of supply from weak to strong hands is a necessary but ongoing process for a market bottom. The rally stalled almost precisely at the aggregate cost basis (~$83k) of US spot Bitcoin ETF investors, turning that level into strong resistance and leaving the average ETF holder underwater again. Spot market flows have turned decisively negative, showing sellers are dominating order books despite the price drop. While a significant futures long liquidation event cleared over $400 million in leverage, providing a potential reset, sustained spot demand is yet to materialize. Options markets continue to price in higher future volatility (Implied Volatility) than recent price action (Realized Volatility) has shown, with a persistent skew towards put options, indicating ongoing demand for downside protection. In conclusion, multiple metrics point to a fragile market structure. Resistance at the ETF cost basis, accelerating realized losses, dominant spot selling, and cautious options pricing all suggest the bear market trend persists. A sustainable recovery likely requires a resurgence of spot demand, ETF holders returning to profit, and a clear reduction in selling pressure.

marsbit1h ago

Has Bitcoin's 'Rebound Ended', Officially Entering the Late Bear Market Phase?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片