Kiffmeister’s #DFC Weekly Digest
FYI although I call this a *daily* digest my intent is to only post when there’s something substantive to post, and it has been a very quiet week! Maybe it’s just the summer doldrums? However, if you’re interested in digital fiat currency (DFC) news that doesn’t make the “Daily” cut, every Saturday I post a weekly digest here: Kiffmeister’s #DFC Weekly Digest.
Meanwhile, here is some news that did make the Daily Digest cut:
Proposed Rules on Who Can Legally Sell Stablecoins in United States (U.S. Treasury)
The U.S. Treasury has proposed rules implementing Section 3 of the GENIUS Act that define when a payment stablecoin is “issued,” “offered,” or “sold” in the United States, thereby determining licensing and market-access obligations. Issuance by an unlicensed person is generally prohibited from January 18, 2027; foreign issuers must be capable of complying with U.S. lawful orders and reciprocal jurisdictional arrangements; and, from July 18, 2028, U.S.-facing digital-asset service providers generally may offer only stablecoins issued by licensed issuers. The proposal operationalizes the Act’s territorial and intermediary-facing boundaries, making its definitions consequential for issuer structuring, offshore access, platform compliance, and the effective scope of federal/state stablecoin licensing. [U.S. Treasury]
How to Regulate Stablecoins -Exploring the Debatable Land between Securities and Payment Regulation (SSRN)
Simon Gleeson proposes that U.K. stablecoin regulation should treat fiat-backed stablecoins primarily as payment instruments, not securities, because applying investment-market rules to their circulation is functionally incompatible with their intended money-like use. He locates the problem in a regulatory boundary: securities law restricts retail acquisition and intermediation, whereas payments regulation principally governs the resilience, conduct and competition of core payment providers. Simon argues that legal classification should turn on economic function and actual use, not token form or origin. The central unresolved issues are whether stablecoin custody can accommodate deposit-like title transfer, how broadly “arranging” captures software and infrastructure providers, and how financial-promotion, advice and arranging rules overlap—creating material uncertainty for UK-facing firms. [SSRN]
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7294080
BTW if you want to see a complete database of my DFC-related posts going back years, including many that didn’t make the Daily Digest cut, click here.
FYI I produce a monthly digest of digital fiat currency (DFC) developments exclusively for the official sector (e.g., central banks, ministries of finance and international financial institution (e.g., the BIS, IMF, OECD, World Bank)) plus academics and firms that are active in the DFC space (commercial banks, technology providers, consultants, etc.). (DFCs include central bank digital currency (CBDC), stablecoins and tokenized deposits.) It goes out via email on the first business day of every month, and if you’re interested in being on the mailing list, please email me at john@kiffmeister.com.
