A final stablecoin rule has not ended the argument over rewards. The Bank Policy Institute used its October 24 newsletter to renew criticism of how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency will judge arrangements that pay stablecoin holders through third parties.

• BPI says case-by-case decisions leave stablecoin reward arrangements unclear.
• The dispute concerns implementation of the issuer yield prohibition.
• The OCC says its broader GENIUS Act rule takes effect January 18, 2027.

The disagreement is about how the prohibition is applied

In the newsletter, BPI repeated its October 21 response to the final rule. The banking trade group objects to removal of a proposed presumption covering certain issuer arrangements with third parties. It says the replacement approach lacks a clear process for explaining decisions and making outcomes public.

This is a lobbying position from an organization representing banks. Its concern about deposits moving into stablecoins is a forecast about competitive and financial effects, rather than evidence that the newly finalized rule has already caused a measurable outflow.

The OCC’s announcement presents the rule as a framework covering reserve backing, redemption and risk management. It confirms the January effective date and says separate work will address anti-money-laundering and sanctions requirements. BPI’s criticism addresses one part of that wider framework.

The practical distinction is between a payment token’s reserve income and a customer incentive offered elsewhere in its distribution chain. Identifying who pays, who ultimately funds the payment and what behavior earns it can matter more than whether a product calls the transfer a reward, rebate or yield.

Product design now has a regulatory interpretation problem

Consider two hypothetical offers: a payment app discounts a purchase, while another pays a recurring amount for keeping tokens idle. Both benefit the user, but their commercial purpose, funding and connection to the issuer may differ. Their labels alone cannot establish their treatment under the rule.

That is why published reasoning would be useful beyond the banks lobbying for it. A decision about one arrangement can help other providers understand which features the regulator regarded as decisive. Without that detail, firms may struggle to compare their own structures with earlier cases.

The product boundaries are already becoming more complex. SoFi’s tokenized-deposit plan raises a different set of claims from a payment stablecoin, even when conversion makes the customer experience look continuous.

Meanwhile, stablecoin payment activity measures how tokens are used, not whether an incentive is legally permissible. Operational activity cannot answer the policy question by itself.

The scrutiny of transaction purpose also connects with wallet and financial-crime controls: the institution still needs to understand the economic relationship behind the transfer. For the OCC dispute, the next useful evidence will be supervisory guidance and disclosed decisions, rather than competing descriptions of what the rule should mean.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Blockchain Association has urged the US Treasury to draw clearer lines around DeFi software, foreign stablecoin issuers and who could face liability under proposed GENIUS Act rules.

The fight over US stablecoin regulation is shifting from Congress to the details of implementation. In comments on Treasury’s proposed Section 3 rules under the GENIUS Act, the Blockchain Association has argued that a framework designed for regulated payment issuers should not inadvertently catch unrelated software and market participants.

One sticking point is the definition of a digital asset service provider. The association wants officials to distinguish customer-facing financial businesses from infrastructure such as self-custody software and validators that do not provide the same services.

It also disputes how the rules might define knowing participation in unlawful stablecoin issuance. Its position is that enforcement should require genuine knowledge and meaningful assistance, rather than interpreting ordinary secondary-market activity as evidence of involvement.

Foreign-issued stablecoins are another concern. The group says compliance requirements should rely on accessible regulatory information rather than assuming every service provider can investigate an issuer with which it has no direct relationship.

These are advocacy positions, not changes Treasury has adopted. Regulators still have to balance the industry’s request for workable rules against their responsibility to police payment products and financial crime.

The eventual language will help determine whether GENIUS Act compliance is mostly a challenge for stablecoin issuers or one that reaches much further into the surrounding ecosystem.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.

TL;DR: The Blockchain Association has urged the US Treasury to draw clearer lines around DeFi software, foreign stablecoin issuers and who could face liability under proposed GENIUS Act rules.

The fight over US stablecoin regulation is shifting from Congress to the details of implementation. In comments on Treasury’s proposed Section 3 rules under the GENIUS Act, the Blockchain Association has argued that a framework designed for regulated payment issuers should not inadvertently catch unrelated software and market participants.

One sticking point is the definition of a digital asset service provider. The association wants officials to distinguish customer-facing financial businesses from infrastructure such as self-custody software and validators that do not provide the same services.

It also disputes how the rules might define knowing participation in unlawful stablecoin issuance. Its position is that enforcement should require genuine knowledge and meaningful assistance, rather than interpreting ordinary secondary-market activity as evidence of involvement.

Foreign-issued stablecoins are another concern. The group says compliance requirements should rely on accessible regulatory information rather than assuming every service provider can investigate an issuer with which it has no direct relationship.

These are advocacy positions, not changes Treasury has adopted. Regulators still have to balance the industry’s request for workable rules against their responsibility to police payment products and financial crime.

The eventual language will help determine whether GENIUS Act compliance is mostly a challenge for stablecoin issuers or one that reaches much further into the surrounding ecosystem.

Written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.