The October 19, 2026, closure of the comment period for the GENIUS Act NPRM (TREAS-DO-2026-0496) signals the end of the primary public feedback phase for the administration’s stablecoin framework. Published as 91 FR 53368, the proposal drew significant industry engagement, reflecting the urgency noted by Treasury Secretary Bessent in the August 17 press release.
By the time the docket closed, more than 105 comments had been submitted, with 77 published on regulations.gov. The breadth of the filing record underscores the high stakes for digital asset service providers (DASPs) and traditional financial institutions alike. Key industry participants, including the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), the American Bankers Association (ABA), Paradigm, Coinbase, and Circle, have all submitted detailed responses. The record also includes disclosures of ex parte meetings, notably between the Digital Chamber and Societe Generale on October 1, and a separate engagement involving David Ji and Thomas Ziolkowski on October 8, both of which were posted to the docket on October 14. For those tracking the granular evolution of these filings, the Paradigm GENIUS Act tracker provides a comprehensive view of the industry’s positions.
The most contentious debate centers on the scope of the yield prohibition. While the NPRM does not directly implement the Section 4(a)(11) yield prohibition — a domain reserved for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) — the industry is deeply divided over how Treasury should interpret the boundaries of these rewards. Traditional banking trade groups, including the ABA and BPI, have argued for a broad interpretation that would capture rewards generated by affiliates, exchanges, or third-party platforms. The American Bankers Association has projected that the proposed rules could trigger a 25.9% reduction in deposits and roughly $1.5 trillion in lost lending capacity. These banking-industry estimates, however, have been challenged by conflicting research from the Federal Reserve. Conversely, crypto-native firms such as Coinbase, Circle, and the Chamber of Digital Commerce contend that Congress deliberately limited the prohibition to payments made by the issuer. Both sides have expressed dissatisfaction with the OCC’s proposed rebuttable presumption, viewing it as an insufficient mechanism to resolve the underlying conflict.
A second, equally critical fault line concerns the foreign issuer compliance vacuum. Under Section 3 of the act, which defines the parameters for issuing or offering payment stablecoins in the United States, DASPs face a strict enforcement deadline of January 18, 2027. As of today, Treasury has not determined any foreign regulatory regime — such as the EU’s MiCA, the UK’s FSMA, or Singapore’s MAS — to be comparable under Section 18. Furthermore, no Section 18(b) comparability NPRM has been issued. This leaves DASPs facing a broad and potentially unworkable interpretation of what constitutes an issuance in the United States. Without a clear path to comparability, firms are left to navigate a regulatory environment where the penalties for non-compliance are severe, including civil penalties of $100,000 per day and, under Section 3(f), potential criminal liability involving up to $1 million in fines and five years imprisonment.
Following our compliance deadline analysis, the industry is now looking toward the January 18, 2027, enforcement date. Simultaneously, the industry must contend with the SEC Reg Crypto Assets comment deadline, which falls tomorrow, October 20. This parallel compliance layer, combined with ongoing congressional discussions regarding potential market structure legislation to address the yield loophole, suggests that the regulatory landscape will remain in flux. With the Treasury final rule timing still unknown, the industry is bracing for a compressed implementation timeline.
