Original author: Tonya M. Evans
Compiled by Odaily Odaily Golem ( @web3_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-based stablecoins in accordance with net capital rules. Subsequently, Hester Peirce, chair of the SEC's Cryptocurrency Working Group , issued a statement titled "A 2% Discount is Enough."
Peirce stated that if broker-dealers use a "2% discount" instead of a punitive 100% discount for their own positions in eligible stablecoins when calculating net capital, SEC staff would not object.
While this may sound somewhat obscure, this accounting adjustment could be one of the most impactful moves to truly integrate digital assets into the mainstream financial system since the U.S. SEC began softening its stance on cryptocurrencies in early 2025.
Minimum Net Capital and Discount
To understand the reasons behind this, we need to first understand the meaning of "discount" in the brokerage field.
Under Rule 15c3-1 of the Securities Exchange Act, broker-dealers must maintain a minimum net capital, or more precisely, a liquidity buffer, to protect clients should the firm encounter difficulties. In calculating this buffer, the firm must apply “asset impairment” to different assets on its balance sheet, lowering their recorded value to reflect risk. Therefore, riskier or more volatile assets will be subject to a greater discount, while cash will not.
Previously, some brokers unilaterally applied a 100% discount to stablecoins, meaning these positions were completely excluded from their capital calculations. This resulted in excessively high costs for holding stablecoins, making it financially unsustainable for regulated intermediaries.
The current 2% discount completely changes this calculation method, putting payment-type stablecoins on par with money market funds that hold similar underlying assets such as U.S. Treasuries, cash, and short-term government bonds.
As Peirce points out, the reserve requirements for issuing stablecoins under the GENIUS Act are actually more stringent than the "eligible securities" requirements for registered money market funds (including government money market funds). In her view, a 100% discount is too harsh, given the actual underlying assets of these instruments.
This is crucial because stablecoins are the "pillar" of on-chain transactions. They are the way value flows on the blockchain and the prudent engine that drives transactions, settlements, and payments.
If brokers cannot hold these tokens without clearing their capital positions, they cannot effectively participate in the tokenized securities market, facilitate the creation of physical exchange-traded products (ETPs), or provide the integrated cryptocurrency and securities services that institutions increasingly need.
The "2% discount" announcement came at just the right time.
The timing of announcing the "2% discount" is crucial.
The GENIUS Act, signed by President Trump on July 18, 2025, created the first comprehensive federal framework for payments stablecoins. The Act establishes reserve requirements, licensing processes, and regulatory mechanisms for stablecoin issuers, placing them under a regulatory framework that distinguishes payments stablecoins from other digital assets.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently implementing a process for eligible depository institutions to issue 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 time to finalize key implementing rules before the July 2026 deadline.
Peirce's statement and its accompanying FAQ effectively bridge the gap between the GENIUS Act legislative framework and the SEC's own rulebook.
The definition of "payment stablecoins" in the FAQ is specifically forward-looking: prior to the effective date of the GENIUS Act, it relied on existing state-level regulatory standards, such as state-level remittance licenses, requirements to meet the reserve requirements stipulated in the Act, and monthly attestation reports from certified public accountant firms. After the GENIUS Act takes effect, this definition will become the standard of the Act itself.
This dual-track approach means that brokers can begin to treat stablecoins as legitimate trading instruments without waiting for the full implementation of the GENIUS Act.
Peirce also stated that the staff guidance was just the beginning. She invited market participants to comment on how to formally revise Rule 15c3-1 to incorporate payments for stablecoins, and sought input on other SEC rules that might require updates. This public consultation demonstrates that the Commission is considering more than just addressing one-off FAQs; it's about more systematically integrating stablecoins into its regulatory framework.
Policies affecting the accuracy of regulation
Since the establishment of the Cryptocurrency Task Force in January 2025 under then-acting Chairman Mark Uyeda, the U.S. SEC has been systematically phasing out the enforcement-led regulatory approach adopted by former Chairman Gary Gensler.
For example, the U.S. SEC issued guidance on broker-dealers holding crypto assets, clarifying that crypto asset securities do not need to meet control requirements in paper form, allowing broker-dealers to assist in the creation and redemption of physical ETPs, and explaining how alternative trading systems can support cryptocurrency trading pairs.
Furthermore, the FAQ page containing today's guidance on stablecoins has evolved into a comprehensive resource covering everything from transfer agent obligations to the Securities Investor Protection Corporation's (SIPC) protection (or lack thereof) of non-securities crypto assets. The practical and direct impact of these initiatives on the traditional financial services industry is substantial:
- Banks and brokerage firms that are evaluating whether to enter the digital asset space can now have a clearer understanding of how their stablecoin holdings will be subject to capital processing.
- Companies that were previously hesitant about the operating costs of maintaining large positions (which ultimately result in a net zero on the balance sheet) can now reconsider.
- Custodians, clearing houses, and alternative trading system (ATS) operators are exploring tokenized securities settlement, and they now know that settlement assets (stablecoins) will not be seen as a regulatory burden.
The implications are equally significant for ordinary investors, especially those historically overlooked by traditional financial services. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has noted that stablecoins have proven their usefulness in areas such as cross-border payments, emerging market savings instruments, and broader financial participation .
When regulated intermediaries are able to hold and trade stablecoins without incurring hefty capital penalties, more of these services can be offered through trustworthy, regulated channels, rather than through unregulated offshore platforms that pose higher risks to consumers.
Friction between the federal government and the states continues.
Of course, this is not an isolated incident; friction also exists between the federal and state governments. The implementation timeline for the GENIUS Act is very tight. State regulatory agencies must complete the certification of their regulatory frameworks by July 2026.
The consumer fraud protection issues raised by New York Attorney General Letitia James and others remain unresolved. Friction is inevitable in the interaction between federal and state regulations. Furthermore, broader market structure legislation aimed at clarifying which digital assets are securities and which are commodities is still pending in the Senate.
Therefore, the 2% discount, however insignificant or obscure it may seem, represents a deeper meaning: federal securities regulators are actively adjusting existing rules to include stablecoins in their category as functional financial instruments, rather than simply relegating them to the margins.
Whether these adjustments can keep pace with the market, and whether the implementation of the GENIUS Act can deliver on its promises, remains to be seen. However, in the process of moving from regulatory adversarialism to regulatory integration, it is precisely this kind of technical and often unseen work that determines whether policies can be translated into practice.
