US starts clock to bring in ID checks for converting dollars to stablecoins but DeFi stays outside the rules – Crypto News

US regulators have started the compliance clock for stablecoin issuers, with a proposed customer-identification rule that would make direct minting, redemption, and account relationships look more like bank onboarding.

The bigger fight begins after that first customer check. Stablecoins can be bought, transferred, and used across exchanges, wallets, DeFi venues, and smart contracts long after a token leaves the issuer’s direct relationship.

A joint proposal from FinCEN, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, and the NCUA would require permitted payment stablecoin issuers to run a written Customer Identification Program, or CIP, as part of their anti-money-laundering controls.

The Federal Register notice, published June 22, sets up a comment period that runs through Aug. 21.

Related Reading

Treasury’s first GENIUS rule tightens Washington’s grip on who can scale stablecoins

The proposal leaves states with a narrow lane while pushing large stablecoin issuers toward federal control.

Apr 2, 2026 · Gino Matos

The agencies are treating the rule as more than a fringe compliance update. In the official notice text, they say roughly 99% of stablecoin transaction activity occurs in the secondary market and that nearly all users of payment stablecoin products are secondary-market users.

That single fact turns a technical CIP rule into a market-structure fight.

The proposed rule would formalize identity checks where an issuer has a direct account relationship with a customer. As drafted, it leaves exchange trades, wallet transfers, DeFi swaps, and smart-contract interactions outside a direct issuer KYC event when no formal issuer relationship exists.

That leaves stablecoins facing a two-layer future: a regulated gate where tokens are minted, redeemed, or held through issuer-facing relationships, and a transfer layer where most usage happens through exchanges, wallets, ledgers, and smart contracts that may sit outside the issuer’s direct control.

Issuer relationships are becoming bank-like

The proposed rule follows the GENIUS Act’s direction to treat permitted payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. The agencies want issuers to maintain a written CIP appropriate to their size and business, with risk-based procedures to verify customer identity.

In practical terms, issuers would need procedures designed to form a reasonable belief that they know the true identity of each customer. For individuals, that points toward familiar information such as legal name, date of birth, address, and an identification number.

For legal entities, it points toward comparable identifying information and verification procedures.

Those requirements are familiar in banking, broker-dealer, and money-transmission contexts. They are less straightforward with stablecoins because the token can continue to circulate after the initial customer relationship ends.

Related Reading

Stablecoin regulation converts issuers into psuedo-banks while adding a barrier to entry for smaller players

Stablecoin regulation is giving issuers legal clarity, but compliance costs may leave the market to the biggest firms.

Jun 21, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The proposal’s account definition does a lot of work. It focuses on a formal relationship with the issuer to obtain financial services or products, including minting, redeeming, custody, or other services offered directly by the issuer.

It also excludes activity in which no formal relationship is established with the issuer, including activity that does not directly involve the issuer as a transaction party, other than through a smart contract.

That distinction turns issuer compliance into a gatekeeping rule instead of a universal identity layer for every token movement. A user who mints directly with an issuer is in a different position from a user who buys the same stablecoin from another trader, an exchange balance, a wallet transfer, or a DeFi pool.

That gatekeeping model also explains why the proposal is more than a checklist for issuers. It determines where stablecoin compliance can be confidently attached: at the point where a company recognizes a customer, records a relationship, and can maintain procedures over time.

The harder question starts when that same dollar token is circulating among people and venues the issuer may never see.

The secondary market is where the pressure builds

The agencies acknowledge the secondary-market problem directly. Their notice discusses the potential benefits of collecting customer information beyond direct issuer relationships, but also says doing so would be practically challenging because issuers have limited ability to collect information once stablecoins move away from direct interactions.

That is the unresolved fight at the center of the proposal. If the compliance perimeter stops at issuance and redemption, issuers become more like regulated doors into and out of the stablecoin system.

If regulators later push identity expectations into secondary-market flows, the effect could land on exchanges, hosted wallets, DeFi front ends, payment processors, analytics vendors, or issuer-controlled smart-contract infrastructure.

Related Reading

Congress on verge of making regulated dollar stablecoins act almost like digital cash

The GENIUS act has already defined what a legal payment stablecoin looks like. Now lawmakers are trying to make those digital dollars practical to use.

Apr 18, 2026 · Andjela Radmilac

The rule text keeps those venues distinct. It describes secondary-market activity as including on-chain blockchain transactions and off-chain ledger or book transactions at third-party exchanges, and notes that most retail trading occurs off-chain.

That distinction is important for readers who might assume the debate is only about DeFi.

DEXs and smart contracts are the most visible edge case because they test whether compliance can follow token movement without an intermediary account relationship. But the larger question also extends to centralized trading venues, app-based wallets, payment flows, custody products, and internal exchange ledgers, where users may never interact with the issuer.

A bank-style CIP requirement at the primary layer is administratively familiar. A secondary-market identity regime would be a different kind of project, because it would have to decide which actors are responsible for collecting information, which transfers are covered, and how far the obligation follows a token after issuance.