Stablecoin Regulation: FDIC Announces New Proposed AML Rules For Issuers

bitcoinistPubblicato 2026-05-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-05-24

Introduzione

The FDIC has proposed new rules to extend Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and economic sanctions compliance standards to FDIC-supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers (PPSIs). This would formally classify PPSIs as financial institutions, requiring them to implement full Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) programs, OFAC-aligned sanctions compliance structures, and related reporting obligations. The proposal follows earlier prudential standards for PPSIs. Supervision would involve FDIC coordination with FinCEN, with enforcement shielded for entities with effective programs unless significant failures occur. The public comment period lasts until June 9, 2026, with a final rule expected later that year. The FDIC estimates 5-30 PPSIs may seek approval initially, with compliance costs likely modest due to leveraging parent companies' existing infrastructure.

As crypto regulations continue to take shape in the US, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and economic sanctions compliance standards to FDIC-supervised Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers (PPSIs). The move aims to bring digital asset issuers further within the compliance architecture that has long governed traditional banking.

Major Highlights Of New FDIC Proposed Framework

According to a press release on Friday, the proposed rule by the FDIC mainly mandates PPSIs to comply with applicable Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) program requirements, economic sanctions programs, and reporting obligations, including those issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

This latest rulemaking follows an earlier FDIC proposal from April 2026, which established prudential standards for PPSIs covering reserve assets, redemption, capital, and risk management. Under the new parallel FinCEN-OFAC proposed rule, PPSIs would formally be classified as financial institutions under the BSA, requiring them to adopt full AML programs and OFAC-aligned sanctions compliance structures, including internal controls, a designated compliance officer, staff training, independent testing, customer identification, suspicious activity reporting, and on-chain transaction screening capabilities.

In terms of supervision and enforcement, the proposed rule would require the FDIC to notify the FinCEN director at least 30 days before initiating any formal enforcement action or significant supervisory determination related to a PPSI’s AML/CFT program. However, the FDIC signals that PPSIs with demonstrably effective AML/CFT programs would be shielded from enforcement action in most circumstances, except where there is a “significant or systemic failure” to implement required programs.

For context, PPSI refers to all entities authorized under the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) to issue payment stablecoins as subsidiaries of insured State nonmember banks and State savings associations.

Looking Ahead

The public comment period on this proposed rule is expected to last until June 9, 2026, which would mark 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The final rule will be announced later in 2026, along with implementation details and deadlines. The FDIC estimates that between five and 30 FDIC-supervised PPSIs could seek approval in the first few years following enactment, and that most would leverage existing AML infrastructure from their parent institutions, keeping incremental compliance costs modest.

Total crypto market cap valued at $2.5 trillion on the daily chart | Source: TOTAL chart on Tradingview.com

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the main purpose of the FDIC's new proposed rule for Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers (PPSIs)?

AThe main purpose of the proposed rule is to extend Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and economic sanctions compliance standards to FDIC-supervised PPSIs, bringing digital asset issuers into the compliance framework that governs traditional banking.

QWhich two key regulatory bodies' requirements are PPSIs mandated to comply with under the FDIC's proposal?

AUnder the proposed rule, PPSIs are mandated to comply with requirements issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).

QWhat specific AML/CFT program requirements would PPSIs need to adopt if classified as financial institutions under the BSA?

APPSIs would need to adopt full AML programs and OFAC-aligned sanctions compliance structures, including internal controls, a designated compliance officer, staff training, independent testing, customer identification, suspicious activity reporting, and on-chain transaction screening capabilities.

QIn what circumstance would a PPSI with an effective AML/CFT program still face enforcement action?

AA PPSI with a demonstrably effective AML/CFT program would still face enforcement action if there is a "significant or systemic failure" to implement the required programs.

QWhat is the deadline for the public to submit comments on this proposed rule, and by when is the final rule expected?

AThe public comment period is expected to last until June 9, 2026, and the final rule will be announced later in 2026, along with implementation details and deadlines.

Letture associate

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

On the night of February 9th, GitHub suffered a major outage caused by a simple configuration change—reducing a cache refresh interval from 12 to 2 hours—that triggered a cascade of failures. This was not an isolated event, but part of a broader pattern. In early 2026, GitHub experienced at least 8 major incidents, failing to meet its promised 99.9% availability. These outages stemmed from structural issues: explosive growth in load, tight service coupling, and insufficient protection against abnormal traffic. This unprecedented load is driven by AI Agents. In 2025, GitHub handled ~1 billion commits. By 2026, weekly commits reached 275 million, projecting to ~14 billion for the year—a 14x increase. AI tools like Claude Code now contribute 4.5% of all public repository commits, with weekly submissions surging 25x in just three months. AI-generated pull requests jumped from 4 million to 17 million per month in half a year. Unlike human developers, AI Agents work continuously, generating commits at a scale that overwhelms infrastructure designed for human rhythms. The surge also shattered GitHub's business model. Copilot's flat-rate pricing, based on assisting human developers, became unsustainable as Agentic AI sessions consumed resources worth hundreds of dollars for a few dollars in fees. In response, GitHub imposed usage limits and, by June 1st, shifted to a pay-per-use "AI Credits" system. Facing this new reality, GitHub realized a 10x scaling plan was insufficient. It announced a need to *redesign* its architecture for 30x current scale—decoupling services, adding fault isolation, and improving change management to prevent cascading failures. Other platforms like Stripe and AWS are facing similar challenges with AI Agents. Fundamentally, GitHub is transitioning from a human collaboration platform to an "exhaust pipe" for automated AI workflows. Its detailed post-mortem reports aim to maintain trust during this turbulent rebuild. The February outage was not just a technical glitch, but a signal of the software industry's entry into a new, AI-driven era.

marsbit31 min fa

GitHub, Transfixed by AI

marsbit31 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit38 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit38 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片