Community Trust ScoreVerified
The American Bankers Association didn’t mince words. In a Wednesday notice, the group came after the OCC’s final rules on payment stablecoin issuance and custody — specifically the regulator’s call to drop a presumption against certain third-party yield arrangements.
Why It Matters
Why it matters: The dispute highlights an early fault line in how the GENIUS Act will be interpreted and enforced, with banks pressing regulators to keep stablecoins from evolving into a backdoor for yield-bearing products. The outcome could shape how attractive stablecoins are for institutions and customers alike, while signaling how tightly the OCC plans to police the boundary between payments infrastructure and deposit-like competition.
The ABA acknowledged the rules implementing the GENIUS Act included “several positive steps.” But the group argued that the OCC’s treatment of yield basically failed to reflect what Congress actually intended. The core fight is pretty narrow on paper: it’s about how stablecoin issuers could funnel rewards through affiliates, exchanges, or other distribution partners rather than paying holders directly. In practice, the ABA thinks that gap is big enough to drive a truck through.
The Yield Presumption the OCC Dropped
Here’s what changed. The OCC had originally floated a provision that would have presumed certain third-party arrangements violated the GENIUS Act’s ban on yield payments. That presumption would have covered affiliates, exchanges, and distribution partners — basically the main channels through which indirect rewards could flow. The OCC pulled it from the final rule.
The ABA’s objection is direct: without that presumption, issuers can offer economically equivalent yield through third parties while staying technically on the right side of the statutory prohibition. The OCC also didn’t adopt any broader presumption against arrangements designed to get around the ban, which the ABA says leaves the door open even wider.
That’s the crux of it. Not whether yield is banned — it is, under the GENIUS Act — but whether the rule actually stops issuers from doing the same thing through a middleman. The ABA thinks the final rule doesn’t.
The group framed it as an implementation problem, not a legal one. Its argument is that the rule should treat certain third-party reward arrangements as presumed violations, rather than leaving them in a gray zone where the presumption doesn’t apply.
Banking Groups Split With Blockchain Advocates
The ABA wasn’t alone. The Bank Policy Institute landed in roughly the same camp, and it was blunt about the consequences. Dropping the yield presumption, the group said, “replaces clarity with ambiguity and puts the banking system and its customers at risk of deposit flight.” That’s a strong claim — deposit flight is the kind of phrase that gets regulators’ attention fast.
But not everyone saw it that way. The Blockchain Association took the opposite view, saying the OCC’s final rule was actually brought closer to the statutory text by removing the presumption. So you’ve got banking groups on one side, a crypto advocacy group on the other, and the OCC somewhere in the middle trying to implement a law that clearly didn’t settle this debate when it passed.
The split is sharp and it’s real.
The yield fight didn’t start with the final rule. It ran through the legislative debate over the GENIUS Act before Congress passed it in July 2025, and it kept going afterward as interest groups and lawmakers tried to work out how the law’s restrictions should actually apply to third-party rewards. The OCC’s decision didn’t end that argument — it probably just moved it to the next stage.
There’s also a broader backdrop worth noting. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a crypto market structure bill, was in limbo after a failed procedural vote in the Senate last month. The source article doesn’t link that Senate stumble directly to the OCC’s rulemaking, but the two sit in the same legislative environment. Stablecoin rules and market structure rules are moving — or stalling — at the same time, and the industry is watching both tracks closely.
What Comes Next for GENIUS Act Rules
The OCC finalized its rules ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation. Other agencies are still expected to issue their own rules under the law, including the Federal Reserve and Treasury. So the OCC’s framework is out, but the full regulatory picture isn’t complete yet.
For the ABA, the missing yield presumption is the headline problem. The original proposal had safeguards for indirect arrangements. The final rule removed them and didn’t replace them with anything broader. That’s the gap the group wants addressed.
The Blockchain Association’s approval of the change and the ABA’s criticism of it aren’t really reconcilable positions — someone’s reading of the statutory text is going to win out, and it’s unclear yet which interpretation regulators or courts will ultimately back.
The Bank Policy Institute put it plainly: ambiguity is the risk now.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the ABA criticize in the OCC’s stablecoin rules?
The American Bankers Association objected to the OCC removing a proposed presumption against third-party arrangements that could deliver stablecoin yield indirectly, arguing the omission lets issuers sidestep the GENIUS Act’s yield ban through affiliates or exchanges.
What did the Bank Policy Institute say about the OCC’s decision?
The Bank Policy Institute said dropping the yield presumption “replaces clarity with ambiguity and puts the banking system and its customers at risk of deposit flight.”
When does the GENIUS Act take effect?
The OCC finalized its rules ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation, with the law set to take effect in January 2027.
