Elliptic: OCC Proposes GENIUS Act Rules for Stablecoin Issuers

The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has issued a sweeping set of proposed rules to implement the GENIUS Act framework for U.S. payment stablecoins. The proposal lays out who can issue payment stablecoins under OCC oversight, how licensing would work, and what reserve and risk controls issuers would need to maintain.

The draft rules are significant because they move the U.S. stablecoin regime from legislative outline toward operational requirements that banks and nonbanks would actually have to meet.

A detailed “who can issue” and “how you get approved” framework

Under the OCC’s proposal, only “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” would be allowed to issue U.S. payment stablecoins within the regime, including OCC-approved bank subsidiaries and certain OCC-approved federal qualified issuers, with additional treatment for state and foreign qualified issuers that fall within the OCC’s GENIUS Act responsibilities.

The OCC also proposes a formal approval/denial licensing process (not just a notice filing), including procedural steps for applications and appeal pathways if approval is denied.

Reserves: segregated, identifiable, and tightly constrained

A centerpiece of the proposal is reserves. The OCC would require issuers to maintain identifiable, segregated reserve assets with fair value at least equal to outstanding stablecoins at all times, and it details which reserve asset types would qualify—centering on cash/central bank money, insured deposits/shares, short-dated U.S. Treasuries, certain overnight repo/reverse repo arrangements, and government money market funds invested only in permitted assets.

The proposal also implements limits on reuse of reserves, reflecting GENIUS Act prohibitions on pledging, rehypothecating, or otherwise reusing required reserve assets, with only narrow exceptions.

The controversial topic: interest and yield around stablecoins

The OCC uses the rulemaking to address a growing industry pressure point: whether stablecoin holders can receive yield—especially via affiliate structures—without violating the Act’s constraints. The agency outlines how it would assess arrangements where an issuer affiliate pays interest or yield to stablecoin holders.

This matters because yield has become a battleground between banks, stablecoin issuers, and policymakers: it can turn a payment instrument into something that competes more directly with deposits and money market products.

What’s not in the proposal: AML and sanctions rules

The OCC proposal focuses on the prudential framework—licensing, supervision, reserves, and related operational controls—and explicitly does not set out AML/CFT or sanctions obligations for stablecoin issuers, which the agency says will be addressed through separate U.S. Treasury rulemaking.

Timing: comments, final rules, and an implementation runway

The OCC opened a public comment window, with Elliptic noting the proposal would be open for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, followed by final rules that would take effect after a further period—capped by a statutory latest-date reference in the analysis.

In parallel, other U.S. regulators are adjusting adjacent plumbing. The Federal Reserve has proposed codifying the removal of “reputational risk” from supervision and limiting pressure on banks to deny services to lawful businesses—an issue the crypto industry has closely watched through the “de-risking” lens.

And the SEC’s Trading & Markets staff has indicated it would not object to broker-dealers applying a 2% net capital haircut to certain payment stablecoin positions—an interpretation that could make stablecoins more workable for regulated broker-dealer activity tied to tokenized markets.

Why it matters for crypto

• U.S. stablecoin regulation is shifting from concept to concrete operating rules issuers will have to implement.
• Reserve segregation and strict limits on reuse could reshape issuer economics and product design.
• The OCC’s approach to yield/interest structures could determine whether payment stablecoins can compete on returns—or stay “payments-only.”
• The proposal’s lack of AML detail signals more rulemaking ahead, and potentially more compliance lift once Treasury acts.
• SEC net capital guidance and Fed de-risking policy shifts suggest U.S. market infrastructure is slowly becoming more stablecoin-compatible.

What to watch next

• Publication details and the countdown on the OCC comment period, plus early industry responses from banks and stablecoin issuers.
• Any revisions on reserves, permissible assets, and reserve “no-reuse” constraints between proposal and final rules.
• Follow-on U.S. Treasury proposals covering AML/CFT and sanctions obligations for stablecoin issuers.
• Whether the SEC formalizes or expands its stablecoin treatment under broker-dealer capital rules beyond staff guidance.
• How bank access shifts if the Fed’s reputational-risk proposal is finalized and adopted consistently in exams.

Source: Elliptic; OCC GENIUS Act NPRM bulletin and NPRM document