The U.S. Department of the Treasury issues proposed rules on the "substantial similarity" standard for state-level stablecoin regulation under the GENIUS Act

DeepFlowTech · 2026-04-02T00:15:37+00:00

The U.S. Department of the Treasury plans to clarify state-level stablecoin regulatory requirements through new regulations to ensure compliance with federal standards, covering reserve assets, redemptions, and other prudent requirements. The framework is divided into unified requirements and state-specific requirements, with state-level systems needing to include regulations on transition, licensing, supervision, and other aspects.

DeepFlowTech

2026-04-02 00:15:37

Abstract generation in progress

Deep Tide TechFlow news: April 02, according to a proposed rulemaking notice (NPRM) issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Treasury intends to establish broad principles to clarify when a state-level stablecoin regulatory regime can be considered “substantially similar” to the federal regulatory framework, in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 4© of the “American Stablecoin National Innovation Guidance and Establishment Act” (GENIUS Act).

The key points are as follows:

State-level regulatory regimes must meet or exceed the federal standards specified in Section 4(a) of the GENIUS Act; they must not fall below the federal baseline in core prudential requirements such as reserve assets, redemptions, capital requirements, liquidity management, and risk management;
The “federal regulatory framework” includes the text of the Act and the interpretive guidance and regulations issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) published in the Federal Register; for BSA/sanctions compliance, the provisions set by the Treasury govern; and for anti-tying provisions, the Federal Reserve’s regulations apply;
Regulatory requirements are divided into “uniform requirements” and “state-determined requirements.” The former requires that state regimes be fully aligned with the federal framework in substantive content, while the latter allows states to set requirements independently, but the regulatory outcomes must be at least equally strict;
State regimes must include supporting frameworks for transitioning to federal supervision, licensing applications, supervisory enforcement, custody, and bankruptcy, and may add additional requirements as long as they do not conflict with federal law.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.