Fed stablecoin proposal would make circulation a capital cost for supervised issuers
A hypothetical payment stablecoin issuer within the Federal Reserve's proposed supervisory scope, with $1 billion in circulation and no revenue from activities outside its reserve assets, would start with a $20 million baseline operational-risk capital charge under the Fed's proposal announced Sept. 24. A separate loss-history adjustment and any other applicable capital charges would still have to be applied. The issuer would also need reserves backing its coins.
The proposal gives the growth of a stablecoin a direct capital consequence: more coins outstanding mean a larger baseline operating-risk charge, even if the issuer earns nothing from custody or other activities. The formula would apply to approved stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of insured state member banks and to certain qualifying state-chartered issuers that transition to Fed supervision. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's pending proposal takes a different route for issuers under its jurisdiction, using a capital amount tailored to each business and a separate pool of liquid assets tied to expenses.
How the Fed's proposed charge grows
For the first $20 billion of payment stablecoins outstanding, the Fed would calculate the issuance portion of baseline operational-risk capital at 2%. The rate would fall to 1.5% on the next $30 billion and 1% on the amount above $50 billion. These are marginal bands: crossing a threshold would change the rate only on the additional issuance. The Board's memo also adds 25% of the issuer's three-year average annual revenue from non-reserve assets to the baseline.
At $10 billion outstanding with no non-reserve revenue, the baseline issuance portion would be $200 million. This second hypothetical remains entirely in the first band. Both calculations are hypothetical.
The Fed also proposes a loss scalar that can move the operational-risk charge up or down in response to realized losses. An individual issuer's operating-risk charge would also reflect the loss adjustment; its total capital requirement could include other components.
Capital and stablecoin reserves serve different purposes. The Fed would require covered issuers to keep eligible reserve assets with a fair value at least equal to the par value of their outstanding coins. It separately proposes a 2% capital charge on reserve assets that are uninsured deposit claims or undercollateralized reverse repurchase agreements. Those possible credit-risk charges sit apart from the operational-risk calculation. One-to-one reserve assets are a separate requirement from the $20 million baseline capital figure.
The Board memo limits the second category to state-qualified issuers that are uninsured state-chartered depository institutions with at least $10 billion in payment stablecoins outstanding and that transition under the GENIUS Act. The $10 billion threshold applies only to that transition category.
That scope is narrower than the market for dollar stablecoins as a whole. Supervision depends on the legal issuer's status and regulator. The $1 billion example assumes an issuer that qualifies for Board supervision, with no company-specific inputs.
The Fed announced the proposal on Sept. 24 alongside a separate proposal for how insured state member banks would apply to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. The capital formula belongs to the proposed regulatory framework for Board-supervised issuers. Both proposals are open to revision through rulemaking.
The OCC's different proposed method
The OCC's March proposal would set an initial minimum capital amount for a newly chartered or licensed issuer based on its own business plan and risks, subject generally to a $5 million floor during a de novo period. It would also require ongoing capital commensurate with the issuer's business model and risk profile. The proposed rule text leaves that capital amount to a supervisory assessment.
The OCC would require a separate operational backstop: readily available liquid assets equal to 12 months of total expenses, identified apart from the assets backing stablecoins. The backstop would support operations during a disruption. It is a liquidity requirement measured by expenses. The Fed's operating-risk capital charge uses issuance and non-reserve revenue as its starting point.
The OCC did discuss a variable capital component based on coins outstanding as an alternative and sought comment on it. Its proposed rule text omits that percentage-based charge. The two methods apply across different supervisory jurisdictions. Each regulator's eventual total requirement remains undetermined.
The OCC proposal was published in the Federal Register on March 2, and its comment period closed May 1. For the Fed proposals, the Board says comments will close 60 days after Federal Register publication; its Sept. 24 release gives no calendar deadline. The next consequential details are the final calibration of the Fed's loss adjustment and how each regulator settles its capital and liquidity rules after comments.
-- Price
This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.
You may also like

US Treasury Volatility Rises to March High, BTC and US Stocks Remain Calm

The Illusion of $1 Billion in Trading Volume? Testing the Real Selling Pressure of Coinbase Stock Tokens During U.S. Market Closure

Kaspa Aims for 100 Blocks Per Second: DAGKnight, ZK, and VProgs

Uniswap v4 Ecosystem Surpasses 500 Registered Custom Hooks

Raiffeisen’s crypto deal could reach 18 million customers. How many can actually trade?

Ethereum's 'Two-Track Update': Glamsterdam Public Testnet and Hegotá Initial Validation

Sui Testnet v1.80.1 Released with Protocol 137 Updates

Is Avalanche the ‘Designated’ Tokenization Chain for ICE After a Year of Testing?
The Evolution of AI: The Boundaries and Truth of Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI)
$1 billion in trading volume masks hidden liquidity risks for Coinbase stock token holders
FinTra Holding Launches the Universal Payment Network (UPN) Consortium
Over 70% of South Korean Crypto Investors Oppose Crypto Tax: What Are Their Concerns?
Bitget Conversations with Trader Shiguang: Seeking the Discrepancy Between Price and Value
Yield Curve Approaches Inversion, TGA and Fed Tools Become New Focus in US Treasury Market
ETH, SOL burn totals do not reflect true supply change
Circle Foundation launches first U.S. grants for AI
XRPL fixes critical pre-mainnet flaw, but client apps remain at risk
Bernstein Research Report: Why Can Gold Still Surge to $5,700 Even with Continued Rate Hikes by the Fed?
The Link Between Bitcoin and Stocks Strengthened by ETF Effects
U.S. Banks Face $326.7 Billion in Unrealized Losses
Orbio's Market Value Surges to $90 Million in 20 Days, Is Demand Keeping Up?
People Power Party: "Rushing Digital Asset Taxation Burdens Investors... Tax System Needs Review"
US Prediction Market Trading Volume Increases Tenfold Amid Controversy
Sam Price Emphasizes the Importance of Analyzing Bitcoin ETF Flow Trends
U.S. Treasury Secretary Says Bond Buybacks Aim to Increase Liquidity and Manage Debt Structure
Cybercriminals Create Fake AI Agents to Install Malware and Steal Cryptocurrencies
Why Trump backed a crypto ethics rule that stopped at the family business
Why risk a smart contract exploit when safe US Treasuries pay better crypto yields?






