This time, the Federal Reserve’s public consultation concerns two regulatory proposals targeting stablecoin issuers; these are not final rules that take effect. Moreover, since the GENIUS Act was signed in 2025, the federal regulators’ rulemaking deadlines have already been delayed. At present, it is only in the comment-collection stage, and the timeline for formal implementation is at least several months—possibly longer. The market may therefore price regulatory positives excessively in advance. In addition, key details of the proposals—such as the specific scope of applicability, reserve requirements, and whether non-bank issuers are covered—have not yet been disclosed. With the current information, it is not possible to determine how strict or lenient the regulation will be. Conversely, prior evidence suggests that the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has repeatedly changed its regulatory stance toward stablecoins. Coordination between federal and state regulatory rules still carries uncertainty. Regulatory actions that are only in the consultation stage typically need at least a 3–6 month comment period and a revision period to result in final rules; within that window, there is significant variability. As a result, in the short term it is difficult to directly push the market into a one-sided trend.
If the final rules are implemented in line with industry expectations—only requiring stablecoin issuers to improve transparency of reserves and increase audit frequency, without adding issuance costs or restricting use cases—the supply scale of compliant stablecoins is expected to increase further. Improved liquidity of compliant stablecoins, which serve as a core trading medium in the crypto market, will directly reduce trading frictions for mainstream crypto assets such as BTC and ETH and enhance market activity. This is especially beneficial for derivative markets that rely on stablecoin trading pairs and for application scenarios related to cross-border payments.
If the proposal sets a capital requirement higher than industry expectations, restricts the use of stablecoins in DeFi scenarios, or mandates that issuers obtain a federal banking license, it will significantly increase compliance costs for smaller and mid-sized stablecoin issuers. It may even cause some non-compliant stablecoins to exit the market. Paradoxically, in the short term, this could lead to a contraction in the supply of compliant stablecoins. As a result, trading liquidity in the crypto market will tighten on a temporary basis, and the spot trading depth of BTC and ETH and the open interest in derivatives may be suppressed in the short term.
The key dimensions to validate the developments following this event are threefold: First, the final proposal text published after the comment collection period ends—focus on three core provisions: reserve requirements, licensing requirements, and restrictions on use cases. Second, the progress of rule implementation by the regulatory authorities—whether they will specify a timeline for implementation in the subsequent legislative cycle, to avoid again missing deadlines. Third, the business adjustment trends of major stablecoin issuers—if issuers proactively adjust their reserve structures to meet expectations, that would indicate the degree of looseness or strictness aligns with industry expectations; otherwise, it may point to more stringent regulatory requirements.