GENIUS Act enters final phase: NCUA unveils draft stablecoin rules

ambcryptoPublicado em 2026-02-12Última atualização em 2026-02-12

Resumo

The U.S. National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) has released draft rules for credit unions to issue payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act, becoming the first federal regulator to advance the law’s implementation. Federally insured credit unions (FICUs) must issue stablecoins through a subsidiary they own at least 10% of, rather than directly. The proposal includes a 120-day decision deadline for applications and allows reapplications if denied. Stakeholder feedback is due by April 13, 2026, after which the NCUA will finalize the rules. Other major stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle will be regulated by the OCC, which has yet to propose its rules. The stablecoin market has grown significantly since the GENIUS Act was passed, though growth has recently slowed.

After becoming law last July, the U.S. stablecoin framework, the GENIUS Act, is now gearing up for the final implementation stage.

The U.S. National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), one of the four federal regulators overseeing the sector, has unveiled proposed rules for credit unions seeking to issue payment stablecoins.

Other regulators instructed by the GENIUS Act to formulate laws to operationalize the framework for payment stablecoins include the FDIC, OCC, and the Federal Reserve. So far, NCUA’s latest move makes it the first to push for implementation.

Reacting to the same, NCUA Chairman Kyle Hauptman said,

“We’re on track to meet the Congress’ July 18 deadline. Credit unions should be aware that they won’t be at a disadvantage versus other entities, whether in timing or standards.”

What’s next after NCUA draft proposals?

Under the NCUA’s proposed rules, federally insured credit unions (FICUs) cannot issue stablecoins directly; they can only do so through a subsidiary.

Besides, the FICUs must own over 10% of the subsidiary. So the NCUA licenses will be issued to the FICU subsidiary.

Regarding the application requirements, there will be a 120-day deadline for the NCUA’s decision after a potential issuer completes the filing. And applicants will have the right to reapply even after being denied. Other requirements, such as reserve backing, will be issued later.

Stakeholders (credit unions, industry groups, fintechs, etc) are expected to give feedback on these proposed rules by the 13th of April, 2026.

After reviewing these comments, the NCUA will revise and clarify the provisions. The process addresses concerns and refines the framework. After revisions, the NCUA issues updated rules as legally enforceable regulations. This action marks the final step in implementing the GENIUS Act.

That said, other top stablecoin players, such as Tether, Circle, and Ripple, will be regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). To be eligible, these players have applied for national trust bank licenses.

But the OCC hasn’t issued proposed rules for them yet, with about five months before the Congress’s implementation deadline.

Impact on stablecoins

Since the GENIUS Act became law, the stablecoin market has surged from $250 billion to nearly $320 billion. However, the market has plateaued at around $308 billion amid the broader crypto market cool-off.

This underscored that crypto trading remains a major driver of stablecoin market growth despite rising interest in the payments segment.


Final Thoughts

  • NCUA has proposed that credit unions seeking to become stablecoin issuers do so through subsidiaries they control.
  • The credit unions watchdog sought stakeholders’ feedback by April to help hit the July 2026 implementation deadline.

Leituras Relacionadas

Arbitrum Pretends to Be the Hacker, 'Steals' Back the Money Lost by KelpDAO

Title: Arbitrum Poses as Hacker to Recover Stolen Funds from KelpDAO Last week, KelpDAO suffered a hack resulting in nearly $300 million in losses, marking the largest DeFi security incident this year. Approximately 30,765 ETH (worth over $70 million) remained on an Arbitrum address controlled by the attacker. In an unprecedented move, Arbitrum’s Security Council utilized its emergency authority to upgrade the Inbox bridge contract, adding a function that allowed them to impersonate the hacker’s address and initiate a transfer without access to its private key. The council’s action, approved by 9 of its 12 members, moved the stolen ETH to a frozen address in a single transaction before reverting the contract to its original state. The operation was coordinated with law enforcement, which attributed the attack to North Korea’s Lazarus Group. Community reactions are divided: some praise the recovery of funds, while others question the centralization of power, as the council can upgrade core contracts without governance votes. However, such emergency mechanisms are common among major L2s. Despite the partial recovery, over $292 million was stolen in total, with more than $100 million in bad debt on Aave and remaining funds scattered across other chains. The incident highlights escalating security challenges in DeFi, with state-sponsored hackers employing advanced tactics and L2s responding with elevated countermeasures.

marsbitHá 2m

Arbitrum Pretends to Be the Hacker, 'Steals' Back the Money Lost by KelpDAO

marsbitHá 2m

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

The article "iQiyi Is Too Impatient" discusses the controversy surrounding the Chinese streaming platform IQiyi's recent announcement of an "AI Actor Library" during its 2026 World Conference. IQiyi claimed over 100 actors, including well-known names like Zhang Ruoyun and Yu Hewei, had joined the initiative. CEO Gong Yu suggested AI could enable actors to "star in 14 dramas a year instead of 4" and that "live-action filming might become a world cultural heritage." The announcement quickly sparked backlash. Multiple actors named in the list issued urgent statements denying they had signed any AI-related authorization agreements. This forced IQiyi to clarify that inclusion in the library only indicated a willingness to *consider* AI projects, with separate negotiations required for any specific role. The incident, which trended on social media with hashtags like "IQiyi is crazy," is presented as a sign of the company's growing desperation. Facing intense competition from short-video platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou, as well as Bilibili and Xiaohongshu, IQiyi's financial performance has weakened, with revenues declining for two consecutive years. The author argues that IQiyi is "too impatient" to tell a compelling AI story to reassure the market, especially as it pursues a listing on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The piece concludes by outlining three key "AI questions" IQiyi must answer: defining its role as a tool provider versus a content creator, balancing the "coldness" of AI with the human element audiences desire, and properly managing the interests of platforms, actors, and viewers. The core dilemma is that while AI can reduce costs and increase efficiency, it risks creating homogenized, formulaic content and devaluing human performers.

marsbitHá 56m

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

marsbitHá 56m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片