GENIUS Act enters final phase: NCUA unveils draft stablecoin rules

ambcryptoОпубліковано о 2026-02-12Востаннє оновлено о 2026-02-12

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год тому

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.

marsbit2 год тому

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

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片