OCC Proposes Framework To Implement GENIUS Act, Targets Stablecoin Yield Workarounds

bitcoinist2026-02-27 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-27 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has released a proposed framework to implement the GENIUS Act, a landmark stablecoin regulation signed into law in 2025. The 376-page proposal outlines rules for stablecoin issuers under OCC jurisdiction, including reserve standards, liquidity requirements, and risk management controls. A key focus is addressing potential workarounds to the Act’s ban on interest payments for stablecoin holders. The OCC warns that issuers might use third-party arrangements to circumvent the prohibition and proposes a presumption that certain deals with affiliates or related parties would be considered illegal yield payments. The agency is seeking public feedback on the proposal to shape the final rule.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has asked the public for feedback on its proposed framework to regulate stablecoins under the landmark crypto regulation, including proposals to address potential workaround on the interest payments ban.

OCC Lays Out Framework For GENIUS Act Implementation

On Wednesday, the OCC issued a proposed rulemaking to implement the landmark stablecoin legislation, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.

The GENIUS Act was signed into law by US President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025. The legislation establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoin activities in the US.

In the 376-page document, the agency included regulations for permitted payment stablecoin issuers and foreign payment stablecoin issuers under the OCC’s jurisdiction and certain custody activities conducted by OCC-supervised entities.

Notably, the OCC will have regulatory authority over certain issuers, such as subsidiaries of national banks or federal savings associations, federal qualified issuers, state qualified issuers, and foreign issuers.

The proposed rules cover all regulations the OCC is required to promulgate under the GENIUS Act, including reserve asset standards, liquidity and custody requirements, risk management controls, audits, and supervisory examinations.

However, it exempts rules related to the Bank Secrecy Act, Anti-Money Laundering, and Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions, which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking alongside the Department of the Treasury.

“The OCC has given thoughtful consideration to a proposed regulatory framework in which the stablecoin industry can flourish in a safe and sound manner,” said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould in a statement.

“We welcome feedback on the proposal to inform a final rule that is effective, practical and reflects broad industry perspective. The OCC will continue its work to implement the GENIUS Act and provide OCC regulated entities with more opportunities to meet the needs of their customers and communities,” he added.

Rules To Address Stablecoin Yield Workarounds

The proposed draft also tackled a key issue related to the regulation of these assets: the payments of interest or yield on stablecoins. For context, the legislation prohibits interest payments on the holding or use of payment-purpose stablecoins, but only addresses permitted issuers.

Based on this, the banking sector has argued that the GENIUS Act has “loopholes” that could pose risks to the financial system and has urged senators to include language in the crypto market structure bill, known as the CLARITY Act, that also bans digital asset exchanges, brokers, dealers, and related entities from offering yield.

The OCC expanded on the GENIUS Act ban, highlighting potential areas that must be addressed to prevent these “loopholes.” The agency argued that issuers could attempt workarounds to “make prohibited payments of interest or yield to payment stablecoin holders through arrangements with third parties.”

However, it noted that due to the large and changing variety of such arrangements, it would be impossible to identify and address all of them. Therefore, it proposed to include a presumption that “certain types of arrangements with certain types of persons” would be prohibited payments of yield or interest by the issuer.

The OCC would presume that an issuer is paying the holder any form of interest or yield if: the issuer “has a contract, agreement, or other arrangement with an affiliate or a related third party to pay interest or yield to the affiliate or related third party;” and if the affiliate or related third party “has a contract, agreement, or other arrangement to pay interest or yield (...) to a holder of any payment stablecoin issued” by the permitted issuer “solely in connection with the holding, use, or retention” of these tokens.

Nonetheless, the OCC clarified that the prohibition is not intended to prevent a merchant from independently offering a discount to a holder for using payment stablecoins. It is also not intended to prevent an issuer “from sharing in the profits derived from the payment stablecoin with a non-affiliate partner in a white-label arrangement.”

The total crypto market capitalization is at $2.31 trillion in the one-week chart. Source: TOTAL on TradingView

İlgili Sorular

QWhat is the main purpose of the OCC's proposed framework?

AThe main purpose of the OCC's proposed framework is to implement the GENIUS Act and establish regulations for stablecoin activities, including reserve asset standards, liquidity requirements, and measures to address potential workarounds on the interest payments ban.

QWhat specific entities will the OCC have regulatory authority over under the proposed rules?

AThe OCC will have regulatory authority over subsidiaries of national banks or federal savings associations, federal qualified issuers, state qualified issuers, and foreign issuers of payment stablecoins.

QWhat key issue related to stablecoin yield does the OCC's proposal specifically address?

AThe proposal specifically addresses the issue of potential workarounds where issuers might attempt to pay prohibited interest or yield to stablecoin holders through arrangements with third parties, such as affiliates.

QAccording to the OCC, what two conditions would lead to a presumption that an issuer is paying prohibited yield?

AThe OCC would presume an issuer is paying yield if: 1) it has an arrangement with an affiliate or related third party to pay them interest, and 2) that affiliate or third party has an arrangement to pay that interest to a stablecoin holder solely in connection with holding or using the tokens.

QWhat types of activities are NOT intended to be prevented by the OCC's proposed rules on yield?

AThe rules are not intended to prevent a merchant from independently offering a discount for using stablecoins, or to prevent an issuer from sharing profits with a non-affiliate partner in a white-label arrangement.

İlgili Okumalar

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit2 saat önce

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit2 saat önce

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit3 saat önce

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit3 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片