Original Author / Tonya M. Evans
Compiled by / Odaily Planet Daily Golem(@web 3_golem)
On February 19th, the Division of Trading and Markets at 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. SEC Crypto Assets Working Group Chair Hester Peirce subsequently 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 steps taken 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 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 customers 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 effectively valued at zero for their capital calculations. The result was that holding stablecoins became prohibitively expensive, making it financially unsustainable for regulated intermediaries.
The 2% haircut now fundamentally changes this calculation, 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 approved stablecoin issuers under the GENIUS Act are actually stricter than the "eligible securities" requirements for registered money market fund, 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 "lifeblood" of on-chain transactions. They are the means by which value moves on blockchains 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 in-kind exchange-traded products (ETPs), or provide the integrated crypto and securities services institutions increasingly demand.
The "2% Haircut" Statement is Timely
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 regime 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 application procedures for insured depository institutions to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also building its own framework. In short, federal regulators are racing against the clock to finalize key implementation rules by 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 FAQ's definition of a "payment stablecoin" is deliberately forward-looking: before the GENIUS Act's effective date, 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 begin treating stablecoins as legitimate trading instruments.
Peirce also indicated that the staff 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 might 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 formation of the Crypto Assets Working Group under then-Acting Chair Mark Uyeda in January 2025, the SEC has been systematically and incrementally unwinding the enforcement-led regulatory approach of former Chair Gary Gensler's era.
For example, the SEC issued guidance on the custody of crypto assets by broker-dealers, clarifying that crypto asset securities do not need to be in paper form to meet control requirements, allowed broker-dealers to assist with the creation and redemption of in-kind ETPs, and outlined how alternative trading systems (ATS) can support crypto pair trading.
Furthermore, the FAQ page containing today's stablecoin guidance has grown 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 moves is significant:
- Banks and broker-dealers evaluating entry into the digital asset space can now get a better understanding of how their stablecoin holdings will be treated for capital purposes.
- Firms previously hesitant due to the operational cost of maintaining significant positions (which ultimately netted to zero on the balance sheet) can now reconsider.
- Custodians, clearing firms, and ATS operators exploring tokenized securities settlement now know the settlement asset (stablecoins) won't 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 the proven utility of stablecoins 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 less regulated offshore platforms where consumer risks are higher.
Federal vs. State Friction Continues
Of course, none of this exists in a vacuum, and friction between federal and state authorities persists. The implementation timeline for the GENIUS Act is tight. State regulators must have their regulatory frameworks certified by July 2026.
Consumer fraud protection concerns raised by figures like New York Attorney General Letitia James remain unresolved. Friction is inevitable in the interaction between federal and state regulation. Furthermore, broader market structure legislation aimed at clarifying which digital assets are securities and which are commodities remains 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 incorporate stablecoins as functional financial instruments, rather than consigning them to the margins.
Whether this adaptation can keep pace with the market, and whether the implementation of the GENIUS Act lives up to its promise, 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.
