What signals did the US SEC send behind the new 2% discount regulation for stablecoins?

Author: Tonya M. Evans
Translation: Odaily Planet Daily Golem

On February 19, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of Trading and Markets released a new FAQ clarifying how broker-dealers should handle payment stablecoins under net capital rules. Following this, SEC Cryptocurrency Working Group Chair Hester Peirce issued a statement titled “A 2% Discount Is Enough.”
Peirce stated that if broker-dealers apply a “2% discount” instead of a punitive 100% discount to their own holdings of qualifying payment stablecoins when calculating net capital, SEC staff will not object.
Although this may sound somewhat obscure, this accounting adjustment is arguably one of the most influential steps taken since early 2025, when the SEC began softening its stance on cryptocurrencies to facilitate the integration of digital assets into mainstream finance.

Minimum Net Capital and Discount
To understand the significance, we first need to grasp what “discount” means in the context of broker-dealers.
According to Rule 15c3-1 of the Securities Exchange Act, broker-dealers must maintain minimum net capital, or more precisely, maintain a liquidity buffer to protect clients if the firm encounters difficulties. When calculating this buffer, the firm must apply “asset impairments” to its on-balance-sheet assets, reducing their value to reflect risk. As a result, higher-risk or more volatile assets are subject to larger discounts, while cash is not.
Previously, some broker-dealers applied a 100% discount to stablecoins, meaning these holdings were entirely excluded from capital calculations. This resulted in prohibitively high costs for holding stablecoins, making it financially unsustainable for regulated intermediaries.
The current 2% discount fundamentally changes this approach, placing payment stablecoins on equal footing with holdings in similar underlying assets (such as U.S. Treasuries, cash, and short-term government bonds) in money market funds.
As Peirce pointed out, under the GENIUS Act, the reserve requirements for issuing stablecoins are actually more stringent than the “qualified securities” requirements for registered money market funds (including government money market funds). In her view, considering the actual backing assets of these tools, a 100% discount is overly harsh.
This is crucial because stablecoins are the backbone of on-chain transactions. They are the means by which value flows on the blockchain and serve as a prudent engine for facilitating trading, settlement, and payments.
If broker-dealers cannot hold these tokens without depleting their capital positions, they cannot effectively participate in the tokenized securities market, cannot promote the creation of exchange-traded products (ETPs), and cannot provide the integrated crypto and securities services increasingly demanded by institutions.

The Timely Announcement of the “2% Discount”
Timing is key for this announcement.
The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025, established the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. It set reserve requirements, licensing procedures, and regulatory mechanisms for stablecoin issuers, integrating them into a regulatory framework that distinguishes payment stablecoins from other digital assets.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently implementing application procedures for depository institutions issuing payment stablecoins through their subsidiaries. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also developing its own framework. In short, federal regulators are racing against the clock to finalize key implementation details before the July 2026 deadline.
Peirce’s statement and the accompanying FAQ effectively bridge the gap between the legislative framework of the GENIUS Act and the SEC’s own rules manual.

The FAQ’s definition of “payment stablecoins” is intentionally forward-looking: before the GENIUS Act takes effect, it relies on existing state-level standards such as state money transfer licenses, compliance with reserve requirements outlined in the law, and monthly attestations by registered accounting firms. After the law’s enactment, this definition will shift to the standards set by the law itself.
This dual-track approach means broker-dealers can start treating stablecoins as legitimate trading instruments even before the full implementation of the GENIUS Act.

Peirce also noted that the staff’s guidance is just the beginning. She invited market participants to provide feedback on how to formally amend Rule 15c3-1 to incorporate payment stablecoins and sought input on other SEC rules that may need updating. This public solicitation indicates that the commission is considering more than just a one-off FAQ; it aims to systematically integrate stablecoins into its regulatory framework.

Policy Impact on Regulatory Precision
Since the cryptocurrency working group was established in January 2025 under Acting Chair Mark Uyeda, the SEC has been systematically moving away from the enforcement-heavy approach of former Chair Gary Gensler.
For example, the SEC issued guidance on broker-dealer custody of crypto assets, clarifying that crypto securities do not need to be held in physical form to meet control requirements, allowing broker-dealers to assist in creating and redeeming physical ETPs, and explaining how alternative trading systems support crypto trading pairs.
Additionally, the FAQ page, which now includes the current stablecoin guidance, has evolved into a comprehensive resource covering everything from the obligations of transfer agents to the lack of protections for non-securities crypto assets under the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).
The practical impact on traditional financial services is significant:

• Banks and broker-dealers evaluating entry into digital assets can now better understand how their stablecoin holdings will be treated for capital purposes.
• Firms previously hesitant due to operational costs associated with maintaining large positions (ultimately with zero net asset value on their balance sheets) can reconsider.
• Custodians, clearinghouses, and alternative trading system operators exploring tokenized securities settlement now know that settlement assets (stablecoins) will not be viewed as regulatory burdens.

For individual investors, especially those historically overlooked by traditional finance, the implications are equally important. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has highlighted stablecoins’ utility in cross-border payments, emerging market savings tools, and broader financial inclusion channels.
When regulated intermediaries can hold and trade stablecoins without facing hefty capital penalties, more such services can be offered through trusted, regulated channels rather than riskier, unregulated offshore platforms.

Continued Frictions Between Federal and State Regulations
Of course, these developments are not happening in isolation. Tensions remain between federal and state regulators. The implementation timeline for the GENIUS Act is very tight. State regulators must complete their approval frameworks by July 2026.
Issues like consumer fraud protections raised by New York Attorney General Letitia James remain unresolved. Interactions between federal and state regulation will inevitably lead to friction. Moreover, broader legislative efforts to clarify which digital assets are securities versus commodities are still pending in the Senate.
Thus, the 2% discount, no matter how seemingly minor or complex, signifies a deeper shift: federal securities regulators are actively adjusting existing rules to incorporate stablecoins as functional financial tools, not just peripheral assets.
Whether this adjustment will keep pace with market developments and whether the GENIUS Act’s promises will be fulfilled remains to be seen. But in the transition from regulatory hostility to integration, it is often this subtle, technical work—less visible but crucial—that determines whether policies can be effectively implemented.