Federal vs. State Stablecoin Regulation: Choosing Your Registration Path

The signing of the GENIUS Act into law on July 18, 2025, fundamentally transformed stablecoin regulation in the United States.¹ For the first time, stablecoin issuers have a clear choice: pursue federal registration under the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or Federal Reserve oversight, or obtain approval under a "substantially similar" state regulatory framework.

This decision carries multi-million dollar implications. Federal registration offers nationwide market access and regulatory clarity but requires navigating OCC chartering processes and ongoing federal supervision. State registration may provide more familiar regulatory relationships and potentially lower barriers to entry—but only for issuers maintaining circulation below $10 billion, and only in states that obtain federal certification of their regulatory frameworks.

This article provides a strategic framework for choosing your registration path, comparing costs, timelines, operational requirements, and long-term business implications under the new federal stablecoin regulatory regime.

Understanding the GENIUS Act's Dual-Track Framework

The GENIUS Act establishes three pathways for lawful stablecoin issuance in the United States, creating what amounts to a two-tier system: federal registration for larger issuers and certain structural configurations, and state registration for smaller issuers in certified states.

Federal Pathway: Three Registration Routes

1. Insured Depository Institution (IDI) Subsidiaries

Subsidiaries of insured depository institutions or credit unions may issue payment stablecoins under the supervisory authority of their primary federal banking regulator (OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, or NCUA, depending on charter type).²

This structure appeals to existing banks seeking to enter the stablecoin market by establishing specialized subsidiaries. The bank's existing regulatory relationship provides familiarity, but subjects the stablecoin operation to comprehensive prudential supervision.

2. Federal Qualified Payment Stablecoin Issuers (OCC-Supervised Nonbanks)

Nonbank entities may apply to the OCC for approval as federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers.³ This category includes:

Uninsured national banks chartered by the OCC specifically for stablecoin issuance
Federal branches of non-U.S. banks approved by the OCC
Other nonbank entities approved under Section 5 of the Act

Circle's June 2025 application to establish First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A., exemplifies this approach.⁴ The proposed national trust bank would focus exclusively on safeguarding USDC reserves, managing cash and Treasury holdings, and providing institutional digital asset custody—without offering traditional deposits or loans.

3. State Qualified Payment Stablecoin Issuers

State-chartered entities with consolidated stablecoin issuance below $10 billion may obtain approval from a state payment stablecoin regulator—but only if that state's regulatory framework has been certified as "substantially similar" to federal requirements by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC).⁵

The SCRC, composed of the Treasury Secretary, Federal Reserve, and FDIC, must unanimously approve each state's regulatory framework, ensuring close alignment with federal standards.⁶ States must submit initial certification applications by July 18, 2026, with annual recertifications thereafter.

The $10 Billion Threshold: Mandatory Federal Transition

State qualified issuers face a critical constraint: once consolidated stablecoin circulation exceeds $10 billion, they must transition to federal oversight within 360 days or obtain a waiver from federal regulators.⁷

This threshold creates a strategic decision point. Issuers anticipating rapid growth beyond $10 billion may prefer federal registration from the outset, avoiding the operational disruption and compliance costs of mid-growth regulatory transition.

Cost Analysis: Federal vs. State Registration

Federal Registration Costs

Initial Application and Chartering ($1.25M - $2M)

OCC charter applications require substantial upfront investment:

Legal and consulting fees: $500,000 - $1,000,000 for specialized regulatory counsel, compliance consultants, and application preparation
Organizational expenses: $250,000 - $500,000 for business plan development, policy documentation, and systems implementation
Application fees: Currently suspended by the OCC, though this may change⁸
Background checks and due diligence: $50,000 - $100,000 for comprehensive vetting of directors, officers, and principal shareholders

Ongoing Compliance Costs ($2M - $5M+ annually)

Federal supervision imposes significant recurring expenses:⁹

OCC assessments: Based on assets under management, with independent trust banks subject to specialized assessment structures
Monthly attestations: Third-party auditor review of reserve composition and 1:1 backing, typically $50,000 - $150,000 monthly
Annual financial statement audits: Required for issuers exceeding $10 billion, with PCAOB-compliant audits costing $500,000 - $2,000,000+ for issuers exceeding $50 billion
Compliance staffing: Dedicated BSA/AML officer, compliance team, internal audit function—typically 5-15 full-time employees for mid-sized operations
Technology and reporting systems: Reserve management infrastructure, real-time monitoring, regulatory reporting platforms—$500,000 - $1,500,000 annually
Examination costs: Federal examiner time and associated expenses

State Registration Costs

Multi-State Licensing ($1.5M - $3M initially)

The traditional money transmitter licensing approach requires obtaining licenses in each state where the stablecoin will be offered—effectively 49 states (Montana does not require licensing).¹⁰

Initial costs include:

Application fees: $200 - $5,000 per state, totaling $100,000 - $250,000 across all jurisdictions
Surety bonds: $10,000 - $500,000 per state depending on transaction volume, with annual premiums of 1-5% for traditional financial services (2-4x higher for crypto businesses)¹¹
Net worth requirements: $100,000 - $500,000+ per state, requiring substantial upfront capital
Legal and compliance consulting: $750,000 - $1,500,000 to navigate state-by-state variations and coordinate multi-jurisdiction applications
Background checks: $50,000 - $100,000 for all required principals across multiple state applications

Ongoing State Compliance ($1M - $2.5M annually)

License renewal fees: Annual fees varying by state and transaction volume
Surety bond premiums: Ongoing annual costs of 1-5% of bond amounts (higher for crypto)
State examinations: Examiner costs, travel expenses, and associated legal fees for multi-state examination cycles
Compliance staffing: Multi-state compliance expertise requiring 3-8 full-time employees
State reporting: Quarterly and annual reports to each licensing state
Call report preparation: NMLS filings and state-specific financial reporting

State Qualified Issuer Under GENIUS Act: Potential Cost Reduction

The GENIUS Act's state qualified issuer pathway offers potential cost advantages over traditional multi-state licensing—but only in certified states.

Rather than obtaining 49 separate state licenses, an issuer could potentially obtain approval in a single certified state and gain nationwide market access through federal preemption (subject to home state regulation).¹²

Estimated Initial Costs ($500,000 - $1.5M):

State application and licensing: $50,000 - $200,000 in home state
Legal and compliance consulting: $300,000 - $800,000 for GENIUS Act compliance structuring
Reserve management infrastructure: $150,000 - $500,000 for attestation and reporting systems

Estimated Ongoing Costs ($1M - $3M annually):

Monthly attestations: $50,000 - $150,000 monthly for third-party auditor review
State supervision: Home state examination and oversight costs
Compliance staffing: 3-8 full-time employees familiar with GENIUS Act requirements
Reserve management and reporting: Ongoing systems maintenance and reporting obligations

Critical Limitation: This pathway only works if your home state obtains SCRC certification, and only until you exceed $10 billion in circulation—at which point federal transition costs apply.

Federal Preemption: Understanding Market Access

The GENIUS Act's preemption provisions fundamentally change stablecoin market access, but the scope differs between federal and state pathways.

Federal Qualified Issuers: Complete State Licensing Preemption

Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers (whether IDI subsidiaries or OCC-supervised nonbanks) enjoy complete preemption of state money transmitter and virtual currency licensing requirements for their stablecoin activities.¹³

This "passporting" effect provides:

Nationwide market access without obtaining state-by-state licenses
Regulatory clarity through single federal supervisor relationship
Reduced compliance complexity by eliminating multi-state coordination
Operational efficiency in launching new products or expanding services

Important Limitation: Preemption applies only to payment stablecoin activities. If your business includes other crypto services (exchange, custody of other digital assets, etc.), those activities may still trigger state licensing requirements.

State Qualified Issuers: Partial Preemption with Home State Exception

State qualified payment stablecoin issuers benefit from preemption of state licensing requirements except in their home state.¹⁴

This means:

Nationwide market access for stablecoin issuance without licenses in other states
Home state supervision remains fully applicable
Single primary regulator rather than multi-state coordination
Reduced licensing costs compared to traditional 49-state approach

Consumer Protection Laws: No Preemption

The GENIUS Act explicitly preserves state consumer protection laws, which continue to apply to all stablecoin issuers regardless of registration pathway.¹⁵

This means issuers must still comply with:

State unfair and deceptive practices acts
Consumer disclosure requirements
Fraud and misrepresentation prohibitions
State-specific consumer protection regulations

Ongoing Compliance Requirements: Federal vs. State

Both pathways impose substantial ongoing compliance obligations, though the specific requirements and supervisory approaches differ.

Reserve Requirements (Identical for Both Pathways)

The GENIUS Act mandates identical reserve requirements for all payment stablecoin issuers:¹⁶

1:1 backing: Reserves must equal or exceed outstanding stablecoin circulation at all times
Permitted reserve assets: U.S. dollars, Federal Reserve notes, funds at insured depository institutions, short-term Treasuries, Treasury-backed reverse repurchase agreements, and money market funds
Segregation: Reserve assets must be held separately from the issuer's proprietary assets
Custodial arrangements: Reserves must be held at regulated financial institutions

Monthly Attestations (Both Pathways)

All permitted payment stablecoin issuers must provide monthly public reporting of reserve portfolio composition, with examination by a registered public accounting firm.¹⁷

The CEO and CFO must certify report accuracy, creating personal liability for misstatements.

Practical implication: Budget $50,000 - $150,000 monthly for third-party auditor review, regardless of which regulatory pathway you choose.

Annual Audits (Large Issuers Only)

Issuers with outstanding stablecoin circulation exceeding $10 billion must provide annual audited financial statements.¹⁸

Issuers exceeding $50 billion face enhanced audit requirements under PCAOB auditing standards, with audit costs potentially reaching $500,000 - $2,000,000+ annually.

Federal Supervision: Examination Intensity

Federal qualified issuers face comprehensive prudential supervision comparable to traditional banking oversight:

Regular safety and soundness examinations by OCC or primary federal regulator
Capital adequacy assessments (though the Act does not impose traditional bank capital requirements)
Management and governance review of board effectiveness, risk management, and internal controls
Consumer compliance examinations for BSA/AML, sanctions compliance, and consumer protection
Continuous monitoring through regulatory reporting and off-site surveillance

State Supervision: Varying Intensity by State

State qualified issuers remain subject to their home state regulator's examination and supervision practices, which vary significantly by state.

States with mature digital asset regulatory frameworks (New York, Wyoming, several others) conduct sophisticated examinations comparable to federal bank supervision. Other states may have less developed examination protocols and expertise.

Strategic consideration: Evaluate your home state regulator's sophistication, resources, and approach to digital asset supervision before committing to state registration.

Strategic Decision Framework

Choosing between federal and state registration requires evaluating multiple factors beyond pure cost comparison.

Choose Federal Registration When:

1. You anticipate exceeding $10 billion in circulation within 3-5 years

Federal registration from the outset avoids the operational disruption and compliance costs of mid-growth regulatory transition. The $10 billion threshold may arrive faster than initially projected, particularly if institutional adoption accelerates.

2. You operate in multiple business lines beyond stablecoins

If your company offers exchange services, custody of diverse digital assets, DeFi protocols, or other crypto services alongside stablecoin issuance, federal registration for the stablecoin operation may simplify your overall regulatory structure.

3. You seek maximum regulatory clarity and national market access certainty

Federal registration provides clear nationwide market access without dependence on state certification decisions. Regulatory guidance from a single federal supervisor simplifies compliance planning.

4. You have existing banking relationships or bank parent

IDI subsidiaries of existing banks benefit from established regulatory relationships and can leverage existing compliance infrastructure, reducing implementation costs and timelines.

5. Your business model requires direct reserve management

Entities seeking OCC trust charters (like Circle's application) can directly manage stablecoin reserves rather than relying entirely on third-party custodians, providing operational control and potentially reduced costs.

6. International operations are central to strategy

Federal registration may provide greater credibility and simplified regulatory coordination with international regulators, particularly in jurisdictions that require demonstration of robust home country supervision.

Choose State Registration When:

1. You plan to remain below $10 billion for the foreseeable future

If your business model targets a specific market niche or use case unlikely to generate massive circulation, state registration may provide sufficient market access at lower cost.

2. Your home state is obtaining SCRC certification

Confirm that your home state (or a state where you could reasonably establish principal operations) is pursuing SCRC certification and likely to obtain approval. New York, Wyoming, and several other states with existing digital asset frameworks are strong candidates.

3. You have established state regulatory relationships

If you currently hold state money transmitter licenses or have positive regulatory relationships with a particular state regulator, leveraging that existing relationship may be advantageous.

4. You want to avoid federal bank charter complexity

OCC charter applications require substantial organizational complexity, including board composition, management expertise, and corporate governance structures meeting banking standards. State chartering may impose less demanding organizational requirements.

5. Lower initial capital requirements are critical

State registration typically requires lower upfront capital outlays than federal bank chartering, though ongoing compliance costs may be comparable.

6. You prefer regulatory flexibility during market development

Some issuers perceive state regulators as more flexible and responsive to emerging business models than federal banking agencies. This varies significantly by state and individual regulator, but may influence early-stage companies' decisions.

Dual Compliance Scenarios: When You Need Both

Certain business structures or growth trajectories may require navigating both federal and state regulatory frameworks simultaneously.

Multi-Product Companies

If your company issues stablecoins alongside other crypto services (exchange, custody, lending), you may need:

Federal or state qualified issuer status for stablecoin operations
State money transmitter licenses for exchange and transmission activities
State-specific digital asset licenses (e.g., New York BitLicense) for comprehensive crypto services

Strategic approach: Consider corporate structuring to segregate stablecoin issuance in a dedicated subsidiary subject to GENIUS Act registration, while maintaining separate entities for other crypto activities under traditional state licensing.

Mid-Growth Regulatory Transition

State qualified issuers approaching the $10 billion threshold face a 360-day transition period to federal oversight.¹⁹

Transition planning checklist:

Monitor circulation metrics to identify approaching threshold 12-18 months in advance
Begin federal registration planning when circulation reaches $7-8 billion
Engage OCC or Federal Reserve informally to discuss transition timeline
Develop comprehensive business plan meeting federal chartering requirements
Build compliance infrastructure meeting federal examination standards
Retain specialized regulatory counsel for federal application preparation
Consider whether to request waiver to remain under state supervision beyond threshold

The transition period creates operational and compliance complexity. Proactive planning can minimize disruption, but the costs are significant—potentially requiring much of the upfront investment associated with initial federal registration.

Geographic Expansion Considerations

The GENIUS Act's preemption provisions largely eliminate geographic licensing barriers for stablecoin activities, but consider:

International operations: Some foreign jurisdictions may require local registration or impose restrictions on foreign-issued stablecoins
State consumer protection compliance: Preemption does not extend to state consumer protection laws, which may vary by state
Related business activities: Non-stablecoin services may still require state-by-state licensing analysis

Real-World Issuer Structures Under the GENIUS Act

Circle: Pursuing Federal OCC Charter

Circle's June 2025 application to establish First National Digital Currency Bank exemplifies the federal qualified issuer approach.²⁰

Structure: OCC-chartered national trust bank focused exclusively on:

Managing USDC reserves (currently managed by BlackRock and held at BNY Mellon)
Digital asset custody services for institutional clients
No traditional deposits or consumer lending

Rationale: With over $62 billion in USDC circulation, Circle exceeds the $10 billion threshold requiring federal oversight. Federal chartering provides:

Regulatory clarity under single federal supervisor
Nationwide market access certainty
Credibility for institutional and international partnerships
Direct control of reserve management operations

Timeline: If approved within 4-6 months, Circle could operate as national trust bank by early 2026.

Paxos: Leveraging Existing State Trust Charter

Paxos Trust Company operates under a New York limited purpose trust charter issued by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in 2015.²¹

Current structure: State-chartered trust company subject to NYDFS supervision, issuing USDP (Pax Dollar) and PYUSD (PayPal USD) stablecoins under existing state regulatory framework.

Post-GENIUS Act considerations:

If New York obtains SCRC certification (highly likely given NYDFS's sophisticated digital asset regime), Paxos could potentially operate as state qualified issuer
Current USDP circulation appears below $10 billion threshold
Existing NYDFS regulatory relationship provides continuity and familiarity

Strategic question: Does Paxos pursue federal registration to match Circle's structure, or leverage existing New York charter as state qualified issuer? The answer likely depends on growth projections and NYDFS certification timing.

Traditional Banks: IDI Subsidiary Model

Several traditional banks have explored stablecoin issuance or partnership models. The GENIUS Act's IDI subsidiary pathway provides a natural entry point:

Structure: Establish specialized subsidiary of existing insured depository institution focused on stablecoin issuance.

Advantages:

Leverage parent bank's existing regulatory relationships
Utilize parent bank's compliance infrastructure and expertise
Benefit from parent bank's reputation and institutional relationships
Potential for integrated product offerings (stablecoin-enabled banking services)

Challenges:

Subject to comprehensive prudential supervision
Potential concerns about risk transmission to parent institution
Bank holding company regulatory considerations
Possible competitive tensions with traditional banking services

Implementation Timeline and Next Steps

The GENIUS Act establishes specific deadlines creating urgency for registration planning:

Key Dates

January 18, 2027 (or 120 days after final regulations): GENIUS Act effective date²²

Stablecoin issuance without proper registration becomes unlawful
Existing issuers must complete registration by this date

July 18, 2026: State certification deadline

States must submit initial SCRC certification applications demonstrating "substantially similar" regulatory frameworks²³
States failing to certify lose ability to supervise state qualified issuers

October 20, 2025: Comment period closes

Industry feedback on implementation regulations due to federal banking agencies²⁴
Final regulations expected in Q4 2025 or Q1 2026

Three years post-enactment (July 18, 2028): Foreign issuer restrictions

Unauthorized foreign-issued stablecoins face U.S. trading restrictions²⁵

Action Plan for Stablecoin Issuers

Immediate Actions (October - December 2025):

Determine likely registration pathway based on growth projections, current circulation, and strategic objectives
Assess home state certification likelihood if considering state qualified issuer approach
Conduct gap analysis comparing current operations to GENIUS Act requirements
Engage specialized regulatory counsel with stablecoin and banking law expertise
Begin reserve management infrastructure development for monthly attestation requirements
Evaluate corporate structure and consider entity reorganization if beneficial

Near-Term Preparation (Q1 - Q2 2026):

Monitor state certification decisions and SCRC guidance on "substantially similar" standards
Develop comprehensive business plan meeting federal chartering or state approval requirements
Build compliance infrastructure including BSA/AML programs, risk management frameworks, and internal controls
Recruit compliance and audit talent with stablecoin and banking regulatory expertise
Establish third-party auditor relationships for monthly attestation requirements
Prepare preliminary application materials for chosen regulatory pathway

Application Preparation (Q3 - Q4 2026):

Finalize and submit regulatory applications (OCC charter, Federal Reserve approval, or state qualified issuer application)
Engage proactively with regulators throughout application review process
Address regulator questions and information requests promptly and comprehensively
Complete organizational requirements (board composition, management team, policies and procedures)
Conduct compliance readiness assessments ensuring operational preparedness for supervision

Pre-Launch Readiness (Q4 2026 - Q1 2027):

Obtain regulatory approvals with sufficient time before January 2027 effective date
Implement final systems and controls based on regulatory feedback and examination findings
Complete staff training on GENIUS Act compliance requirements
Execute custodial and service provider agreements for reserve management
Prepare initial monthly attestation demonstrating compliance from day one

Emerging Considerations and Open Questions

The GENIUS Act's implementation will evolve through regulatory guidance and industry practice. Several areas warrant careful monitoring:

SCRC Certification Standards

The "substantially similar" standard for state regulatory frameworks remains undefined. The Treasury Department will establish principles through notice-and-comment rulemaking, but substantial questions remain:

How closely must state reserve requirements align with federal standards?
What examination frequency and intensity must states demonstrate?
Can states impose additional requirements beyond federal minimums?
How will SCRC assess states with limited digital asset supervisory experience?

Practical implication: If considering state registration, closely monitor SCRC guidance and initial certification decisions to assess likelihood of your preferred state obtaining approval.

Waiver Provisions for Exceeding $10 Billion

The Act permits state qualified issuers to request waivers to remain under state supervision after exceeding $10 billion.²⁶ Federal regulators have broad discretion in granting waivers, creating uncertainty.

Potential waiver criteria might include:

Strength and sophistication of home state regulatory regime
Issuer's compliance history and financial condition
Systemic importance and consumer impact
Market concentration considerations

Strategic consideration: Don't rely on waiver availability when planning growth trajectory. Assume federal transition will be required upon exceeding threshold.

International Coordination

The GENIUS Act addresses foreign-issued stablecoins but leaves many international coordination questions unresolved:

How will federal regulators coordinate with foreign supervisors?
Will reciprocal recognition arrangements develop with other jurisdictions?
How will conflicts between U.S. and foreign requirements be resolved?
What barriers might foreign issuers face in U.S. market access?

For issuers with international operations, engage regulatory counsel in both U.S. and foreign jurisdictions to develop coordinated compliance strategies.

Securities Law Intersection

The GENIUS Act regulates "payment stablecoins" but does not address securities law analysis. Issuers must still evaluate whether their stablecoin might constitute a security under the Howey test and related SEC guidance.

Key considerations:

Does the stablecoin involve investment of money in a common enterprise with expectation of profit from others' efforts?
Does the stablecoin include yield, interest, or profit participation features?
How is the stablecoin marketed and distributed?

Securities analysis remains separate from GENIUS Act compliance. Consult securities law counsel in addition to banking regulatory counsel.

Conclusion: Strategic Pathway Selection

The GENIUS Act fundamentally transforms U.S. stablecoin regulation, replacing fragmented state-by-state licensing with a clear dual-track framework. For the first time, issuers can make strategic choices about their regulatory structure based on business objectives, growth trajectories, and operational considerations.

Federal registration through OCC chartering or IDI subsidiary structures offers maximum regulatory clarity, nationwide market access certainty, and scalability for issuers anticipating significant growth. Initial costs of $1.25M - $2M and ongoing compliance expenses of $2M - $5M+ annually reflect the comprehensive supervision inherent in federal banking oversight.

State registration as a qualified issuer provides a potentially lower-cost entry point for smaller issuers, with estimated initial costs of $500,000 - $1.5M and ongoing expenses of $1M - $3M annually. However, this pathway requires home state SCRC certification and mandatory federal transition upon exceeding $10 billion in circulation.

The right choice depends on your specific circumstances:

Growth-oriented issuers targeting mass-market adoption should pursue federal registration from inception, avoiding mid-growth regulatory transition costs and complexity
Niche-focused issuers with realistic caps well below $10 billion may benefit from state registration's lower barriers and potentially more flexible supervision
Bank-affiliated issuers should leverage IDI subsidiary structures to utilize existing regulatory relationships and compliance infrastructure
International operators may prefer federal registration's credibility and simplified foreign regulatory coordination

Regardless of pathway, all issuers face the January 18, 2027 effective date. With federal and state application processes requiring 6-12 months or more, strategic planning and application preparation must begin immediately.

The stablecoin regulatory landscape has fundamentally shifted from uncertainty to clarity. Issuers that move decisively to secure appropriate registration will capture the competitive advantages of regulatory compliance, market access, and consumer trust in this new era of federal stablecoin oversight.

Need Stablecoin Registration Guidance?

Astraea Counsel helps stablecoin issuers navigate federal and state registration pathways under the GENIUS Act, including OCC charter applications, state qualified issuer structuring, and strategic compliance planning. Explore our Digital Assets & Blockchain services.

Related Resources

The GENIUS Act: Your 6-Month Stablecoin Compliance Roadmap - Complete federal registration overview
Stablecoin Reserve Requirements: Attestations, Custody, and Liquidity - Reserve compliance details for all issuers
Qualified Crypto Custodians: Regulatory Requirements - Selecting custodians for reserve assets
Money Transmitter Licensing: State-by-State Strategy - State licensing fundamentals
Regulatory Compliance Services - Navigate complex federal and state requirements
Contact Us - Discuss your registration strategy

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Regulatory requirements are complex and fact-specific. Consult qualified legal counsel for advice on your specific situation.

GENIUS Act (S. 1582), signed into law July 18, 2025. See White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Signs GENIUS Act into Law, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-signs-genius-act-into-law/ (July 18, 2025). ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(a). Subsidiaries of insured depository institutions and credit unions may issue payment stablecoins subject to approval under Section 5 and oversight by their primary federal regulator. ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(b). Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers include nonbank entities approved by the OCC, including uninsured national banks and federal branches of foreign banks. ↩
Circle files for National Trust Charter to Back USDC, Aitechtonic (June 30, 2025), https://aitechtonic.com/circle-files-for-national-trust-charter-to-back-usdc/; Stablecoin issuer Circle applies for a national bank charter, CNBC (June 30, 2025), https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/30/stablecoin-issuer-circle-applies-for-a-national-bank-charter.html. ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(c). State qualified payment stablecoin issuers must be established under state law with consolidated outstanding stablecoin issuance below $10 billion and approved by a state regulator with an SCRC-certified "substantially similar" framework. ↩
Latham & Watkins, The GENIUS Act of 2025: Stablecoin Legislation Adopted in the US, https://www.lw.com/en/insights/the-genius-act-of-2025-stablecoin-legislation-adopted-in-the-us (July 2025) (describing SCRC unanimous approval requirement). ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(c)(3). State qualified issuers exceeding $10 billion in consolidated outstanding stablecoin issuance must transition to federal oversight within 360 days or obtain a waiver. ↩
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Charters & Licensing, https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/charters-and-licensing/index-charters-licensing.html (noting "all licensing fees have been suspended until further notice"). ↩
CCN, GENIUS Act Compliance: Full Cost & Checklist Guide for US Stablecoin Issuers, https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/genius-act-compliance-cost-checklist-us-stablecoin-issuers/ (estimating small stablecoin programs should budget "$2M–$5M+ annually to stay compliant"). ↩
Transak, US Money Transmitter License: A Deep Dive And Why It Matters For Web3, https://transak.com/blog/us-money-transmitter-license-a-deep-dive-and-why-it-matters-for-web3 (describing 49-state licensing requirement, excluding Montana). ↩
JW Surety Bonds, How to Get a Money Transmitter License, https://www.jwsuretybonds.com/blog/money-transmitter-license-step-by-step-guide (noting bond premiums of 1-3% for highly qualified traditional applicants, with cryptocurrency businesses paying 2-4x higher premiums). ↩
GENIUS Act § 9(a). State qualified payment stablecoin issuer approval "expressly supersede[s] and preempt[s] State licensing requirements, with the exception of the State qualified payment stablecoin issuer's home State laws." ↩
GENIUS Act § 9(a). Federal qualified payment stablecoin issuer approval "expressly supersedes and preempts all State licensing requirements" for payment stablecoin activities. ↩
GENIUS Act § 9(a). ↩
GENIUS Act § 9(b). The Act "shall not be construed to preempt State consumer protection laws." ↩
GENIUS Act § 6(a). All permitted payment stablecoin issuers must "maintain reserves backing outstanding payment stablecoins on at least a one-to-one basis" in specified permitted assets. ↩
GENIUS Act § 6(c). Monthly reports must be examined by a registered public accounting firm, with CEO and CFO certification of accuracy. ↩
GENIUS Act § 6(c)(2). Issuers exceeding $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins must provide annual audited financial statements; those exceeding $50 billion face enhanced PCAOB audit requirements. ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(c)(3). ↩
See sources cited in note 4 supra. ↩
Paxos, A Regulated Stablecoin Means Having a Regulator, https://www.paxos.com/blog/a-regulated-stablecoin-means-having-a-regulator (describing NYDFS oversight and 2015 limited purpose trust charter). ↩
GENIUS Act § 15. The Act takes effect on "the earlier of" (1) 18 months after enactment (January 18, 2027), or (2) 120 days after final regulations are issued. ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(c)(4)(C). States must submit initial certification of substantial similarity by July 18, 2026, and annual recertifications thereafter. ↩
Federal Register, GENIUS Act Implementation, 90 Fed. Reg. [page] (Sept. 19, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/19/2025-18226/genius-act-implementation (noting October 20, 2025 comment deadline). ↩
GENIUS Act § 13. Three years after enactment, foreign-issued stablecoins lacking proper U.S. registration face trading restrictions. ↩
GENIUS Act § 4(c)(3). ↩