FDIC Stablecoin Plan Says Holders Don’t Get Deposit Insurance

As regulation moves from proposal to final rules, comment letters reveal where frictions and consensus are taking shape.

The Tuesday (June 9) deadline is fast approaching for comments on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)’s proposed rule implementing portions of the GENIUS Act. The rule covers FDIC-supervised payment stablecoin issuers and insured depository institutions. It addresses reserve assets, redemptions, custody requirements, risk management standards and deposit insurance treatment. It also seeks feedback on dozens of operational questions that could influence how stablecoins are used in payments.

The comment record is extensive and far from uniform. It spans banks, standards bodies, trade groups and industry participants with differing interests. Together, the letters offer a useful guide to the questions regulators appear most focused on answering before stablecoins become a larger part of the payments ecosystem.

Why Deposit Insurance Is the Defining Question for Stablecoin Adoption

Among the most consequential issues is one that may seem technical but sits at the center of adoption: What protections apply when funds move onto a stablecoin rail?

The FDIC proposal seeks to clarify that payment stablecoins themselves are not insured deposits. Reserve assets held at banks would receive treatment as corporate deposits of the permitted payment stablecoin issuer. Stablecoin holders would not receive pass-through FDIC insurance coverage.

The agency argued that such treatment is consistent with the GENIUS Act’s provision that payment stablecoins are not “subject to deposit insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.” Regulators contend that treating stablecoin holders as insured depositors would conflict with the statute and could create confusion about the product’s nature.

For FinTechs, stablecoins may become regulated payment instruments. Regulators, however, appear concerned about their marketing as equivalent to insured bank accounts.

The question is likely to remain central because it affects consumer understanding, treasury adoption and the competitive relationship between stablecoins and traditional deposits. The coverage below does not examine all comment letters but identifies key subjects raised across the financial services industry.

Why Stablecoin Interoperability Standards Matter to Regulators

One recurring theme involves standards and interoperability.

The International Organization for Standardization‘s Technical Committee 68 Standards Advisory Group urged the FDIC to require structured, machine-readable reporting formats and the use of Legal Entity Identifiers. Common standards, the group argued, would improve transparency, support information sharing among regulators and strengthen data quality across the stablecoin ecosystem.

Although the submission focuses on reporting requirements, the broader message concerns interoperability. Payment systems gain value when institutions, providers and regulators can exchange information using common frameworks.

The FDIC itself repeatedly raises questions about reporting standards, reserve disclosures and operational definitions. That suggests regulators recognize that interoperability challenges extend beyond technology and into supervision and compliance.

Why Stablecoin Yield and Incentives Remain a Flashpoint

The comment letters also reveal disagreement over whether stablecoin providers should offer incentives to attract users.

Capitol Federal Savings argued that interest payments, rewards, credits and cashback programs could encourage consumers and businesses to hold funds in stablecoins rather than bank deposits. The bank urged regulators to explicitly prohibit such compensation throughout the stablecoin ecosystem.

The institution warned that these incentives could divert funds from community banks and reduce resources available for local lending. It further argued that reserve assets are unlikely to flow back evenly across the banking system, potentially concentrating funds among larger institutions.

Regulators must therefore determine whether payment stablecoins should function strictly as transactional instruments or whether issuers should compete more directly with deposit products. The outcome will influence both consumer behavior and business models.

How the FDIC Proposal Addresses Stablecoin Safety, Custody and Redemption

The FDIC proposal establishes detailed requirements around reserve composition, custody arrangements, asset segregation, concentration limits and redemption practices. Among other provisions, issuers must maintain highly liquid reserve assets. They must also limit exposure to any single eligible financial institution to no more than 40% of reserves.

The proposal also addresses custody controls and segregation requirements to ensure reserves and customer assets remain identifiable and protected. Custodians must maintain safeguards that prevent unauthorized transfers and the commingling of assets.

These requirements may ultimately prove more important than any individual technology choice. Payment systems succeed when users trust that funds can be redeemed promptly and reserves remain available during periods of stress.

A March PYMNTS Intelligence report underscores why these questions matter. Forty-two percent of middle market companies have discussed, tested or used stablecoins, yet actual usage remains limited. Only 13% report current stablecoin use. Many businesses appear to be waiting for clearer rules and stronger operational foundations before moving beyond experimentation.

What Comes Next After the FDIC Stablecoin Comment Deadline

The Tuesday deadline does not mark the end of the debate. Rather, it marks the beginning of the process through which regulators will translate broad statutory language into practical operating rules.

The comments reveal emerging agreement that stablecoins are becoming part of the payments conversation. They also reveal continuing disagreement about governance, user protections and how closely stablecoins should resemble traditional bank products.

For banks, the concern centers on deposits and market structure. FinTechs, by contrast, are focused on building payment rails that can operate at scale. Regulators, meanwhile, face the challenge of establishing a framework that supports innovation while preserving clarity around safety, redemption rights and consumer protections.

The final rules will determine how those objectives are balanced. The comment letters provide the clearest indication yet of where the pressure points lie.