CFTC Updates Payment Stablecoin Criteria To Recognize National Trust Banks – Details

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-02-08Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-08

Анотація

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has updated its guidance to allow payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks to be used as eligible margin collateral. This amendment to CFTC Staff Letter 25-40 expands the list of approved stablecoin issuers beyond state-regulated entities to include federally chartered national trust banks. The move aligns with former President Trump’s pro-crypto policies and aims to strengthen the U.S. position in stablecoin innovation. CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig praised the decision, highlighting America's growing leadership in the sector. The update follows increased efforts by crypto firms like Anchorage Digital, Coinbase, and Circle to obtain national bank charters and integrate digital assets into the regulated financial system.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has amended a recent staff advisory to recognize payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks as eligible margin collateral. This move forms part of a broader regulatory initiative by the Commission on digital asset integration in line with US President Donald Trump’s pro-crypto agenda.

CFTC Clears FCMs To Accept Bank-Issued Stablecoins As Collateral

In a press release on February 6, the CFTC’s Market Participants Division (MPD) announced an update to the CFTC Staff Letter 25-40, which communicated the “Staff No-Action Position Regarding Digital Assets Accepted As Margin Collateral.”

This memo was initially released on December 8, allowing all CFTC-registered futures commission merchants (FCM) to accept non-securities digital assets, e.g., payment stablecoins, as margin collateral as well as hold specific proprietary stablecoins in separate customer accounts.

However, this earlier version of this memo only acknowledged eligible payment stablecoins as those issued by state-regulated money transmitters or trust companies. However, the CFTC has recognized that a payment stablecoin, as defined in the letter, may also be issued by a national trust bank.

In Trump’s first term, the US historically chartered its first set of national trust banks to engage in custody and issuance of payment stablecoins. The CFTC clarifies there was no intention to initially exclude national trust banks as stablecoin issuers, a position that has now been formally affirmed in the updated version of CFTC Letter 25-40.

CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig has lauded the reissue, recognizing the growing role of the national trust banks and America as a whole in the stablecoin industry.

Selig said:

I’m pleased that the CFTC staff is amending its previously issued no-action letter to expand the list of eligible tokenized collateral to include payment stablecoins issued by these institutions (national trust banks). With the enactment of the GENIUS Act and the CFTC’s new eligible collateral framework, America is the global leader in payment stablecoin innovation.

National Bank Charter: Digital Asset Banks Push For Recognition

In other reports, the competition among digital asset firms to obtain national bank charters reflects a broader effort to integrate cryptocurrency services into the regulated US financial system. A national trust bank charter allows crypto companies to operate under federal oversight, strengthening credibility and expanding institutional partnerships.

In January 2025, Anchorage Digital represented the first crypto-native firm to receive such approval. Presently, several firms, including Coinbase, Circle, Ripple, and BitGo, have also received conditional approvals from the OCC in a bid to broaden their service offerings.

Total crypto market cap valued at $2.35 trillion on the daily chart | Source: TOTAL chart on Tradingview.com

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main update made by the CFTC regarding payment stablecoins?

AThe CFTC has amended its staff advisory to recognize payment stablecoins issued by national trust banks as eligible margin collateral.

QWhich division of the CFTC announced the update to the no-action letter?

AThe CFTC's Market Participants Division (MPD) announced the update to CFTC Staff Letter 25-40.

QWhat was the limitation of the original December 8 memo regarding stablecoin issuers?

AThe original memo only acknowledged eligible payment stablecoins as those issued by state-regulated money transmitters or trust companies, excluding national trust banks.

QAccording to CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig, what does this update make America in the stablecoin industry?

AChairman Selig stated that with this update and the GENIUS Act, America is the global leader in payment stablecoin innovation.

QName one crypto-native firm that was the first to receive a national trust bank charter.

AAnchorage Digital was the first crypto-native firm to receive a national trust bank charter in January 2025.

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit1 год тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit1 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 год тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit2 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片