Proposed Rule2025-18226
GENIUS Act Implementation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 19, 2025
Issuing agencies
Treasury Department
Abstract
The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comment on questions relating to the implementation of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The GENIUS Act tasks Treasury (and various other federal agencies) with issuing regulations that encourage innovation in payment stablecoins while also providing an appropriately tailored regime to protect consumers, mitigate potential illicit finance risks, and address financial stability risks. Through this ANPRM, Treasury is seeking public comment on potential regulations that may be promulgated by Treasury, including regarding regulatory clarity, prohibitions on certain issuances and marketing, Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) anti-money laundering (AML) and sanctions obligations, the balance of state-level oversight with federal oversight, comparable foreign regulatory and supervisory regimes, and tax issues, among other things. Treasury is seeking comment on all aspects of the ANPRM from all interested parties and also requests commenters to identify other issues that Treasury should consider.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 180 (Friday, September 19, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 180 (Friday, September 19, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45159-45163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-18226]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
12 CFR Chapter XV, 31 CFR Subtitles A and B
[TREAS-DO-2025-0037]
RIN 1505-ZA10
GENIUS Act Implementation
AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is issuing this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit public comment
on questions relating to the implementation of the Guiding and
Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The
GENIUS Act tasks Treasury (and various other federal agencies) with
issuing regulations that encourage innovation in payment stablecoins
while also providing an appropriately tailored regime to protect
consumers, mitigate potential illicit finance risks, and address
financial stability risks. Through this ANPRM, Treasury is seeking
public comment on potential regulations that may be promulgated by
Treasury, including regarding regulatory clarity, prohibitions on
certain issuances and marketing, Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) anti-money
laundering (AML) and sanctions obligations, the balance of state-level
oversight with federal oversight, comparable foreign regulatory and
supervisory regimes, and tax issues, among other things. Treasury is
seeking comment on all aspects of the ANPRM from all interested parties
and also requests commenters to identify other issues that Treasury
should consider.
DATES: Comments on this ANPRM must be received on or before October 20,
2025.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through one of two
methods:
<bullet> Electronic Submission: Comments may be submitted
electronically through the Federal Government eRulemaking portal at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
<bullet> Mail: Send to U.S. Department of the Treasury, Attention:
Office of General Counsel, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20220.
We encourage comments to be submitted via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. All comments should be captioned with ``GENIUS Act
Implementation Comments.'' Please include your name, organizational
affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number in your
comment. All comments received, including attachments and other
supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to
public disclosure. Do not submit any information in your comment or
supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate
for public disclosure.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tian Huang and Shane Shannon,
Counselors to the General Counsel; Christina Lee, Senior Counsel; Degi
Altantuya, Frank Colleluori, Brendan Costello, Matan Neuman, Carol
Rodrigues, and David Wertime, Attorney-Advisors, Office of the General
Counsel, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f10181c00183a31362a2c1e3c2b1f0b2d3a3e2c2a2d2671383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="48070f0b170f2d26213d3b092b3c081c3a2d293b3d3a31662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-622-0480, Department of the
Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20220.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Authority
The GENIUS Act, enacted on July 18, 2025, provides a comprehensive
framework for the federal regulation of payment stablecoins.\1\ As
defined in the GENIUS Act, a payment stablecoin is a digital asset \2\
(i) that is, or is designed to be, used as a means of payment or
settlement and (ii) the issuer of which is obligated to convert,
redeem, or repurchase for a fixed amount of monetary value and
represents or creates the reasonable expectation that it will maintain
a stable value relative to a fixed amount of monetary value.\3\ U.S.
dollar-denominated (USD) stablecoins seek to combine the accessibility
and frictionless use of digital assets with the stability and benefits
of a USD-based financial system.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 119-27.
\2\ The term ``digital asset'' means any digital representation
of value that is recorded on a cryptographically secured distributed
ledger. Id. at sec. 2(6).
\3\ See section 2(22) of the GENIUS Act for the full definition
of a payment stablecoin. National currencies, deposits (including
deposits recorded using distributed ledger technology), and
securities are not considered payment stablecoins.
\4\ See generally President's Working Group on Digital Asset
Markets, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial
Technology (2025) at 88, <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the GENIUS Act, only permitted payment stablecoin issuers
(PPSIs) may issue a payment stablecoin in the United States, subject to
certain exceptions and safe harbors.\5\ Further, beginning on July 18,
2028, digital asset service providers \6\ may not offer or sell
[[Page 45160]]
a payment stablecoin to any person in the United States unless the
payment stablecoin is issued by a PPSI or issued by a foreign payment
stablecoin issuer (FPSI) that meets certain requirements.\7\ The GENIUS
Act provides three primary categories of PPSIs, all of which must be
formed in the United States: (i) a subsidiary of an insured depository
institution; (ii) a federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer; or
(iii) a state qualified stablecoin issuer.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Sec. 3(a), Public Law 119-27.
\6\ The term ``digital asset service provider'' means a person
that, for compensation or profit, engages in the business in the
United States (including on behalf of customers or users in the
United States) of (i) exchanging digital assets for monetary value;
(ii) exchanging digital assets for other digital assets; (iii)
transferring digital assets to a third party; (iv) acting as a
digital asset custodian; or (v) participating in financial services
relating to digital asset issuance. Id. at sec. 2(7).
\7\ An FPSI is defined as an issuer of a payment stablecoin that
is organized under the laws of or domiciled in a foreign country, a
territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa,
or the Virgin Islands, and is not a PPSI. Id. at sec. 2(12). See id.
at sec. 3(b) and 18.
\8\ Id. at sec. 2(23).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GENIUS Act vests Treasury with various authorities and
responsibilities, including express authority to issue regulations to
carry out the GENIUS Act.\9\ For example, Treasury is tasked with
implementing limitations on the issuance of payment stablecoins in the
United States,\10\ as well as issuing rules establishing broad-based
principles for determining whether a state-level regulatory regime is
substantially similar to the federal regulatory framework.\11\ The
GENIUS Act calls on Treasury to issue regulations implementing the
requirement that PPSIs are ``subject to all Federal laws applicable to
a U.S. financial institution located in the United States relating to
economic sanctions, prevention of money laundering, customer
identification and due diligence.'' \12\ Treasury is also tasked with
determining whether a foreign country's regulatory and supervisory
regime is comparable to the U.S. framework established through the
GENIUS Act, which would allow certain payment stablecoins issued by an
FPSI to be offered or sold in the United States, subject to certain
additional conditions.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at sec. 13.
\10\ Id. at sec. 3(c)-(d).
\11\ Id. at sec. 4(c)(2).
\12\ See, e.g., id. at sec. 4(a)(5).
\13\ See id. at sec. 18(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
(FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National
Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency (OCC) (collectively, the Primary Federal Payment
Stablecoin Regulators) are generally tasked with implementing capital
and liquidity requirements applicable to PPSIs,\14\ and establishing a
process and framework for the licensing, regulation, examination, and
supervision of PPSIs,\15\ as well as associated regulations governing
depository institutions that hold stablecoin reserves or otherwise
participate in payment stablecoin activities,\16\ among other
directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See id. at sec. 4(a)(4)(A).
\15\ See, e.g., id. at sec. 4(b); 4(h)(1); 5(a)(1)(B); 5(a)(2);
5(g).
\16\ See, e.g., id. at sec. 4(a)(1)(A)(ii); 4(a)(4)(C)(iv); 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the GENIUS Act, the Secretary of the Treasury chairs the
Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC), an interagency
committee that also includes the Chair of the FRB (or the Vice Chair
for Supervision, if delegated by the FRB Chair) and Chair of the
FDIC.\17\ State qualified payment stablecoin issuers (of payment
stablecoins with consolidated total outstanding issuance of up to $10
billion) generally may opt for state regulation so long as the state
regime is substantially similar to the federal regime and the SCRC has
approved the state-level regulatory regime upon determining that it
meets or exceeds the standards and requirements set forth in Section
4(a) of the GENIUS Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See id. at sec. 2(27).
\18\ See id. at sec. 4(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not addressed in the GENIUS Act, Treasury also has
responsibility for federal income tax policy with respect to payment
stablecoins, as part of its general responsibility for developing and
implementing federal tax policies and programs.
II. Scope
This ANPRM solicits public comments on topics and questions
organized in six main categories: Stablecoin Issuers and Service
Providers, Illicit Finance, Foreign Payment Stablecoin Regimes,
Taxation, Insurance, and Economic Data. While this ANPRM invites
comment on any aspect of the GENIUS Act, each section below includes
specific questions. Commenters are not expected to respond to every
question. Treasury generally expects to invite further public comment
on proposed regulations before adopting any final regulations.
This ANPRM generally seeks information on topics that may be the
subject of regulations issued by Treasury under the GENIUS Act to
fulfill its responsibilities, including as chair of the SCRC. For
administrative purposes, commenters should direct to other relevant
agencies any comments on specific topics assigned by the GENIUS Act to
other agencies, rather than include those comments in response to this
ANPRM. However, commenters are encouraged to identify, in their
comments in response to this ANPRM, areas where Treasury's regulations
may overlap with or directly implicate the regulations assigned to
other state or federal agencies.
As discussed further below, on August 18, 2025, Treasury issued a
request for comment (RFC) relating to innovative methods, techniques,
and strategies that financial institutions use, or have the potential
to use, to detect illicit finance related to digital assets pursuant to
Section 9 of the GENIUS Act.\19\ Comments submitted in response to the
RFC should not be submitted in response to this ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Request for Comment on Innovative Methods To Detect Illicit
Activity Involving Digital Assets, 90 FR 40148 (Aug. 18, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Stablecoin Issuers and Service Providers
A. Issuance and Treatment of Payment Stablecoins
The GENIUS Act tasks Treasury with issuing regulations to implement
Section 3 of the GENIUS Act.\20\ That section, which is intended to
have extraterritorial effect,\21\ provides that it shall be unlawful
for any person other than a PPSI to issue a payment stablecoin in the
United States.\22\ However, the GENIUS Act provides that Treasury may
issue regulations providing safe harbors from this general limitation
that are: (i) consistent with the purposes of the GENIUS Act; (ii)
limited in scope; and (iii) apply to a de minimis volume of
transactions, as determined by Treasury.\23\ Treasury may also provide
limited safe harbors if it determines that unusual and exigent
circumstances exist.\24\ Knowing participation in a violation of
Section 3 can result in a fine of not more than $1 million for each
violation or imprisonment for up to five years, or both.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Public Law 119-27 at sec. 3(d).
\21\ Id. at sec. 3(e).
\22\ Id. at sec. 3(a).
\23\ Id. at sec. 3(c)(1).
\24\ Id. at sec. 3(c)(2).
\25\ Id. at sec. 3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What topics should any regulations to effectuate Section 3(a),
including the associated penalties, address?
2. Should Treasury issue regulations providing for safe harbors
from Section 3(a)? If so, what factors should Treasury consider in
adopting these regulations? Would it be better to observe the operation
of Section 3(a) for a period of time before considering safe harbors,
or are safe harbors necessary as soon as Section 3(a) becomes
operational?
[[Page 45161]]
3. Is the scope of the term ``payment stablecoin'' sufficiently
clear as defined in the GENIUS Act? If not, what additional
clarification should be provided?
Section 3(b) of the GENIUS Act provides that, beginning three years
after the enactment of the GENIUS Act (July 18, 2028), it shall
generally be unlawful for a digital asset service provider to offer or
sell a payment stablecoin to a person in the United States unless the
stablecoin is issued by a PPSI.\26\ Section 3(e) provides that these
provisions are intended to have extraterritorial effect if conduct
involves the offer or sale of a payment stablecoin to a person located
in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The statute contemplates potential exceptions for FPSIs
that meet certain requirements, which are addressed in subsequent
sections of this ANPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Is the scope of the term ``digital asset service provider''
sufficiently clear as defined in the GENIUS Act? If not, what
additional clarification should be provided?
5. Is the extraterritorial application sufficiently clear as stated
in the GENIUS Act? If not, what additional clarification should be
provided?
Section 3(g) of the GENIUS Act provides that a payment stablecoin
not issued by a PPSI shall not be: (i) treated as cash or as a cash
equivalent for accounting purposes; (ii) eligible as cash or as a cash
equivalent margin and collateral for certain regulated entities; or
(iii) acceptable as a settlement asset to facilitate certain wholesale
payments.
6. How should payment stablecoins not issued by a PPSI be treated
for accounting purposes under Section 3(g)(1)?
7. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify any aspects
of this treatment provision?
Section 3(h) of the GENIUS Act provides that the following
transactions are exempt from the prohibitions in Section 3: (i) the
direct transfer of digital assets between two individuals acting on
their own behalf and for their own lawful purposes, without the
involvement of an intermediary; (ii) any transaction involving the
receipt of digital assets by an individual between an account owned by
the individual in the United States and an account owned by the
individual abroad that are offered by the same parent company; or (iii)
any transaction by means of a software or hardware wallet that
facilitates an individual's own custody of digital assets.
8. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify the scope
of these exempted transactions?
9. Are there any other terms in Section 3 that would benefit from
additional clarification or interpretation?
B. Requirements for Issuing Payment Stablecoins
Section 4(a)(1)(A) of the GENIUS Act establishes reserve
requirements for stablecoins. Under Section 4(a)(1)(C) of the GENIUS
Act, a PPSI is required to publish the monthly composition of the
issuer's reserves, containing (i) the total number of outstanding
payment stablecoins issued by the issuer, and (ii) the amount and
composition of its reserves, including the average tenor and geographic
location of custody of each category of reserve instruments. Section
18(a)(3) of the GENIUS Act requires an FPSI to hold reserves in a U.S.
financial institution sufficient to meet liquidity demands of U.S.
customers, unless otherwise permitted under a reciprocal arrangement,
among other requirements.
10. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify the scope
of the reserve requirements in Section 4(a) or the requirement to
publish the composition of the reserves?
11. How will FPSIs determine the liquidity demands of U.S.
customers in such a way that will be sufficient to maintain compliance
with the obligation to hold reserves in U.S. financial institutions as
set forth in Section 18(a)(3)?
12. Are any regulations necessary to clarify requirements related
to the holding of reserve assets? In particular, is additional clarity
necessary regarding the extent to which reserve assets are required to,
or should, be held in custody?
13. How do market participants currently meet existing
jurisdictional reserve requirements to minimize settlement or liquidity
risk across jurisdictions that may require local custody of such
reserve assets?
Section 4(a)(11) of the GENIUS Act prohibits PPSIs and FPSIs from
paying the holder of any payment stablecoin any form of interest or
yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) solely in
connection with the holding, use, or retention of such payment
stablecoin.
14. Should any regulations be issued to clarify the meaning of
``pay,'' ``interest,'' ``yield,'' ``solely,'' or otherwise clarify the
scope of Section 4(a)(11)? In particular, should any regulations be
issued to clarify whether, and to what extent, any indirect payments
are prohibited?
Section 4(a)(9) of the GENIUS Act prohibits a PPSI from marketing a
payment stablecoin in such a way that a reasonable person would
perceive the payment stablecoin to be (i) legal tender, (ii) issued by
the United States, or (iii) guaranteed or approved by the government of
the United States. Abbreviations directly relating to the currency to
which a payment stablecoin is pegged, such as ``USD,'' are exempt from
these prohibitions.
15. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify the scope
or application of these provisions, including whether other terms used
by PPSIs may be deceptive?
Under Section 4(a)(12) of the GENIUS Act, certain non-financial
companies may not issue payment stablecoins unless the SCRC unanimously
votes to make certain findings, including that it will not pose a
material risk to the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system,
the financial stability of the United States, or the Deposit Insurance
Fund. Section 4(a)(12)(D) directs the SCRC to issue an interpretive
rule clarifying the non-financial company restrictions.
16. What additional clarification is necessary on the scope or
application of these restrictions?
17. What factors should the SCRC consider in making a finding that,
if a non-financial company issues payment stablecoins, it will not pose
a material risk to the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking system,
the financial stability of the United States, or the Deposit Insurance
Fund? Are there any factors that should be excluded from consideration?
Under Section 4(c)(2) of the GENIUS Act, Treasury is required to
establish broad-based principles for determining whether a state-level
regulatory regime is substantially similar to the federal regulatory
framework under the GENIUS Act.
18. What broad-based principles should be considered in determining
whether a state-level regime is ``substantially similar'' to the
federal regulatory framework? Are there any principles that should be
excluded from consideration?
19. How is a determination that a state-level regime is
``substantially similar'' to the federal regulatory framework, as
described in Sections 4(c)(1) and (2) of the GENIUS Act, similar to or
different from a determination that a state-level regime ``meets or
exceeds the standards and requirements'' for issuing payment
stablecoins, as described in Section 4(c)(5)?
Section 4(e)(3) of the GENIUS Act provides that it shall be
unlawful to market a product in the United States as a payment
stablecoin unless the product is issued pursuant to the GENIUS Act,
[[Page 45162]]
and that knowing and willful violations may lead to a fine by Treasury
of not more than $500,000 for each such violation.
20. To what extent does this prohibition overlap with (i) the
prohibitions in Section 3, (ii) the prohibition on the use of deceptive
names in Section 4(a)(9), or (iii) the prohibition on misrepresentation
of insured status in Section 4(e)(2)?
21. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify or
implement this provision, including how the number of violations will
be determined under Section 4(e)(3)(C)?
22. Are there any other terms in Section 4 that would benefit from
additional clarification or interpretation?
IV. Illicit Finance
The GENIUS Act includes provisions relating to the detection and
prevention of illicit finance in the digital asset sector.\27\ In
accordance with Section 9 of the GENIUS Act, on August 18, 2025,
Treasury published in the Federal Register an RFC seeking input on
innovative or novel methods, techniques, or strategies that regulated
financial institutions use, or have potential to use, to detect illicit
activity. Treasury will consider comments submitted in response to
either the RFC or this ANPRM, so commenters need not, and should not,
resubmit any RFC comments in response to this ANPRM. In addition to
topics addressed in the RFC, Treasury now requests comment on the
following topics relating to illicit finance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., id. at sec. 4(a)(5); 8; 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4(a)(5) of the GENIUS Act subjects PPSIs to ``all Federal
laws applicable to financial institutions located in the United States
relating to economic sanctions, prevention of money laundering,
customer identification and due diligence,'' and directs Treasury to
issue implementing regulations, including related to effective programs
for AML and sanctions, monitoring and reporting suspicious activity,
and technical capabilities and policies and procedures to block,
freeze, and reject impermissible transactions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See, e.g., id. at sec. 4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. What should Treasury consider when promulgating regulations
implementing Section 4(a)(5), including AML and sanctions programs,
monitoring and reporting suspicious activity, and customer
identification and due diligence? What, if any, unique features of
PPSIs should Treasury consider?
24. What should Treasury consider when promulgating a regulation
implementing Section 4(a)(5)(A)(iv)? How do payment stablecoin issuers
anticipate implementing technical capabilities, policies, and
procedures to block, freeze, and reject specific or impermissible
transactions that violate federal or state laws, rules, or regulations,
including transactions involving the secondary market, such as those
that involve sanctioned persons or countries?
Section 4(a)(6)(B) of the GENIUS Act provides that a PPSI may issue
payment stablecoins only if the issuer has the technological capability
to comply, and will comply, with the terms of any lawful order.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See id. at sec. 4(a)(6)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. What, if any, regulations or guidance would help clarify the
obligations in Section 4(a)(6)(B) to have the technological capability
to comply, and to comply, with any lawful order?
The GENIUS Act establishes that foreign issuers of payment
stablecoins must comply with lawful orders and, if they fail to do so,
Treasury can designate the issuer as noncompliant, resulting in a
prohibition on digital asset service providers facilitating secondary
market trading of the foreign issuer's payment stablecoin.\30\ Treasury
can issue licenses and waivers and is directed to specify the criteria
that a noncompliant foreign issuer must meet for Treasury to determine
that an issuer is no longer noncompliant.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See id. at sec. 8.
\31\ See id. at sec. 8(b); 8(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. What factors should Treasury consider in determining whether a
noncompliant FPSI has cured its noncompliance in accordance with
Section 8(b)(3)? What kinds of evidence or commitments should Treasury
require?
27. What else should Treasury consider in promulgating a regulation
related to Section 8 of the GENIUS Act, including its ability to issue
licenses and waivers?
28. In the economic sanctions context, lawful orders will include
sanctions designations. The persons and property subject to blocking
will be identified with reasonable particularity by the publication of
identifying information for such persons and property on Treasury's
Office of Foreign Assets Control's Specially Designated Nationals List.
If regulation or guidance is promulgated, what kind of considerations
and provisions should it include to clarify the requirement to comply
with lawful orders in the economic sanctions context?
V. Foreign Payment Stablecoin Issuers
The GENIUS Act allows an FPSI to offer, sell, or otherwise make
available a payment stablecoin in the United States under certain
circumstances. To implement this framework, the GENIUS Act authorizes
Treasury to determine whether a foreign \32\ regime for the regulation
and supervision of payment stablecoins is comparable to the
requirements established under the GENIUS Act, allowing certain payment
stablecoins issued by an FPSI operating under that foreign regime to be
offered or sold in the United States, subject to certain additional
conditions.\33\ Some foreign jurisdictions may not have legal
definitions for either a ``payment stablecoin'' or a ``payment
stablecoin issuer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ References in this ANPRM to ``foreign'' regimes also
include those of U.S. territories, Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See id. at sec. 18(a)(1).
\33\ See id. at sec. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Comparability
29. For the purpose of identifying existing foreign payment
stablecoin regulatory and supervisory regimes, are there certain
characteristics of a ``payment stablecoin'' recognized in the market
that differ from how this term is defined in the GENIUS Act?
30. Are there foreign payment stablecoin regulatory or supervisory
regimes, or regimes in development, that may be comparable to the
regime established under the GENIUS Act? Are there foreign regimes that
are in effect, or in development, that materially differ from the
regime under the GENIUS Act?
31. What types of differences from the regime under the GENIUS Act,
if any, could create market frictions in international digital assets
activity?
32. As Treasury identifies factors for determining whether a
foreign jurisdiction has a regulatory and supervisory regime that is
comparable to the requirements established under the GENIUS Act,
including standards for issuing payment stablecoins provided in Section
4(a), what specific factors should Treasury consider, including factors
that should disqualify a foreign jurisdiction from being determined to
be comparable? Are there factors that should be excluded from
consideration?
33. To what extent should Treasury consider a foreign
jurisdiction's willingness and ability to enforce the prohibitions in
Sections 4(a)(9), 4(e)(2), and 4(e)(3), as related to
misrepresentations of U.S. government support or that of the foreign
government, as a factor in comparability determinations under Section
18(b)?
[[Page 45163]]
B. Reciprocity
34. How should Treasury interpret ``interoperability'' in Section
18(d)(1)(C), describing ``interoperability with U.S.-dollar denominated
payment stablecoins issued overseas?'' What technical, legal,
regulatory, or other measures are most relevant for interoperability?
To what extent should compliance with any interoperability standards
issued under Section 12 be required under reciprocal arrangements or
other agreements entered into under Section 18(d)?
C. FPSIs
35. What information should U.S. authorities require from a FPSI
registered under Section 18(c), and in what format(s) should such
information be made available, to ensure that U.S. customers understand
how to demand timely redemption of the instrument?
36. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to clarify the
prohibition on offers and sales of payment stablecoins issued by
foreign issuers in the United States under Section 3(b)(2) of the
GENIUS Act, including the requirement that an FPSI have the
``technological capability'' for compliance?
VI. Taxation
The GENIUS Act does not address the federal income tax
characterization of payment stablecoins or any other issues relevant to
the application of the Internal Revenue Code to payment stablecoin
transactions. The characterization of a financial instrument or other
asset for federal income tax purposes in many cases determines or
affects how it is taxed. For example, if payment stablecoins were
treated as debt instruments for federal income tax purposes, they could
be subject to various tax rules governing bonds or securities.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ For a discussion of issues relating to the tax
characterization of payment stablecoins, see Strengthening American
Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, Chapter VII (Taxation),
available at <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Digital-Assets-Report-EO14178.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. To what extent would guidance from the IRS on the
classification of payment stablecoins be necessary or helpful to
taxpayers?
38. What other topics, if any, should any such tax guidance
address? Which issues should be the highest priority items to address?
VII. Insurance
The following questions are intended to assist Treasury in
evaluating how the GENIUS Act and its implementation may affect the
insurance industry.
39. How should implementation of the GENIUS Act take into account
insurance industry practices related to payment stablecoins, the
development of insurance markets related to payment stablecoins, the
activities of domestic and foreign insurers and reinsurers regarding
payment stablecoins, and the provision of insurance coverages relevant
to payment stablecoins?
40. How should GENIUS Act implementation take into account the
types and amounts of insurance coverage that should be purchased by
PPSIs or FPSIs?
41. What should Treasury consider regarding the possibility of
insurers acting as PPSIs, FPSIs, or digital asset service providers,
including with respect to insurance reserving practices and regulatory
requirements?
42. What other topics should Treasury consider with respect to the
impact of the GENIUS Act and its implementation on the insurance
industry? Which issues should be the highest priority items for
Treasury to consider?
VIII. Economic Data
The following questions are intended to assist Treasury in analyses
that it may perform regarding the potential costs and benefits of
certain regulations related to the GENIUS Act.
A. Costs
43. What are the estimated one-time and ongoing costs for PPSIs and
FPSIs to comply with the requirements under the GENIUS Act, including
licensing, disclosure, and AML and sanctions program requirements?
44. What are the expected legal and enforcement costs for PPSIs and
FPSIs associated with GENIUS Act compliance, including litigation-
related expenses?
45. What are the potential costs associated with registration under
state regimes as compared to federal regimes, including any
administrative burdens or impacts on innovation?
B. Benefits
46. What are the potential advantages of registering under state
regimes compared to federal regimes, particularly in terms of
administrative efficiency and support for innovation?
47. The GENIUS Act establishes federal safeguards to protect
consumers. How should the economic benefits of consumer protection be
measured?
48. How do you expect illicit finance activity involving payment
stablecoins and efforts to combat that activity to change due to GENIUS
Act requirements for PPSIs related to AML and sanctions?
49. What are the economic benefits of aligning U.S. stablecoin
rules with foreign regimes (e.g., reduced friction and increased
access)?
50. What is the estimated improvement in compliance efficiency and
market participation due to clearer regulatory guidance as compared to
the environment before the enactment of the GENIUS Act?
51. What is the projected impact of regulatory clarity on startup
formation, venture investment, and product innovation?
52. What is the estimated impact from the adoption of payment
stablecoins on transaction, processing, and settlement fees, failure
rates, and timelines, as compared to existing payments systems?
53. What is the estimated impact of PPSIs and FPSIs on the demand
for Treasury securities, repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase
agreements that are eligible reserve assets under Sec. 4(a)(1)(A)?
IX. Other Topics
54. Are any regulations or guidance necessary to address risks
associated with the resolution of a bankrupt or failed PPSI, including
those that may have stablecoins in international circulation?
55. What types of conflicts of interest might arise for stablecoin
issuers, and what safeguards might enable stakeholders to be confident
in a fair market?
56. Which of the topics addressed in this ANPRM are most critical
for establishing the GENIUS Act regulatory framework? Are there any
other factors Treasury should consider in sequencing and prioritizing
these rulemakings?
57. Are there other topics not addressed in this ANPRM that should
be considered in future Treasury rulemakings?
58. What is the projected impact of regulatory clarity on demand
for payment stablecoins?
X. Regulatory Planning and Review
This ANPRM is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Rachel Miller,
Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 2025-18226 Filed 9-18-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AK-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 19, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.