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
