The "Stablecoin Revolution" on the Balance Sheet: SEC Opens the Door for Digital Asset Compliance with a "2% Discount"

Author / Tonya M. Evans

Translated by / Odaily Planet Daily Golem (@web 3_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 stablecoins under the net capital rule. Following this, SEC Cryptocurrency Working Group Chair Hester Peirce issued a statement titled “A 2% Discount Is Enough.”

Peirce stated that if broker-dealers apply a “2% discount” instead of a punitive 100% discount to their own holdings of qualifying payment stablecoins when calculating net capital, SEC staff would not object.

Although this may sound somewhat obscure, this accounting adjustment could be one of the most influential steps taken to integrate digital assets into the mainstream financial system since the SEC began softening its stance on cryptocurrencies in early 2025.

Minimum Net Capital and Discounts

To understand the reasoning behind this, we first need to grasp what “discount” means in the context of broker-dealers.

According to Rule 15c3-1 of the Securities Exchange Act, broker-dealers must maintain minimum net capital, or more precisely, maintain a liquidity buffer to protect clients if the firm encounters difficulties. When calculating this buffer, the firm must apply “asset impairments” to its on-balance-sheet assets, reducing their recorded value to reflect risk. As a result, higher-risk or more volatile assets are subject to larger discounts, while cash is not.

Previously, some broker-dealers applied a 100% discount to stablecoins, meaning these holdings were entirely excluded from their capital calculations. This resulted in prohibitively high costs for holding stablecoins, making it financially unsustainable for regulated intermediaries.

Now, a 2% discount has completely changed this approach, placing payment stablecoins on equal footing with money market funds holding similar underlying assets (such as U.S. Treasuries, cash, and short-term government bonds).

As Peirce pointed out, under the GENIUS Act, the reserve requirements for stablecoin issuers are actually more stringent than the “qualified securities” requirements for registered money market funds (including government money market funds). In her view, considering the actual backing assets of these tools, a 100% discount is overly harsh.

This is crucial because stablecoins are the backbone of on-chain transactions. They are the means by which value flows on the blockchain and serve as a prudent engine for facilitating trading, settlement, and payments.

If broker-dealers cannot hold these tokens without depleting their capital positions, they cannot effectively participate in the tokenized securities market, cannot promote the creation of physically-backed exchange-traded products (ETPs), and cannot provide the institutional-grade crypto and securities integration services that are increasingly in demand.

The “2% Discount” Statement Comes at the Right Time

The timing of the “2% discount” announcement is critical.

The GENIUS Act, signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025, established the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. The law sets reserve requirements, licensing procedures, and regulatory mechanisms for stablecoin issuers, integrating them into a regulatory framework that distinguishes payment stablecoins from other digital assets.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently implementing application procedures for depository institutions issuing 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 to finalize key implementation details before the July 2026 deadline.

Peirce’s statement and the accompanying FAQ effectively bridge the gap between the legislative framework of the GENIUS Act and the SEC’s own rulebook.

The FAQ’s definition of “payment stablecoins” is intentionally forward-looking: before the GENIUS Act takes effect, it relies on existing state-level regulatory standards, such as state money transfer licenses, reserve requirements aligned with the law, and monthly attestations by certified public accounting firms. After the law’s enactment, this definition will shift to the standards set by the Act itself.

This dual-track approach means broker-dealers can begin to treat stablecoins as legitimate trading tools even before the full implementation of the GENIUS Act.

Peirce also noted that the staff’s guidance is just the beginning. She invited market participants to provide feedback on how to formally amend Rule 15c3-1 to incorporate payment stablecoins and sought input on other SEC rules that may need updating. This public consultation indicates that the SEC is considering more than just a one-off FAQ; it aims to systematically integrate stablecoins into its regulatory framework.

Policy Impacting Regulatory Precision

Since the cryptocurrency working group was established in January 2025 under Acting Chair Mark Uyeda, the SEC has been systematically moving away from the enforcement-heavy approach of former Chair Gary Gensler.

For example, the SEC issued guidance on broker-dealer custody of crypto assets, clarifying that crypto 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 support crypto trading pairs.

Additionally, the FAQ page containing today’s stablecoin guidance has evolved into a comprehensive resource covering everything from transfer agent obligations to the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC)’s protections (or lack thereof) for non-securities crypto assets. These measures have significant practical implications for traditional financial service providers:

Banks and broker-dealers evaluating entry into digital assets can now better understand how their holdings of stablecoins will be treated for capital purposes.

Companies previously hesitant due to the operational costs of maintaining large positions (ultimately with net worth on the balance sheet) can reconsider.

Custodians, clearinghouses, and ATS operators exploring tokenized securities settlement now know that settlement assets (stablecoins) will not be viewed as regulatory burdens.

For ordinary investors, especially those historically overlooked by traditional finance, the subsequent impact is equally important. The IMF has noted that stablecoins have demonstrated utility in cross-border payments, emerging market savings tools, and broader financial inclusion channels.

When regulated intermediaries can hold and trade stablecoins without facing massive capital penalties, more such services can be offered through trusted, regulated channels rather than riskier, unregulated offshore platforms.

Continued Frictions Between Federal and State Regulations

Of course, all this is not happening in isolation; frictions exist between federal and state authorities. The implementation timeline for the GENIUS Act is very tight. State regulators must complete their approval frameworks by July 2026.

Issues raised by advocates like New York Attorney General Letitia James regarding consumer fraud protections remain unresolved. Interactions between federal and state regulators are bound to generate friction. Moreover, broader legislative efforts to clarify which digital assets are securities and which are commodities are still pending in the Senate.

Therefore, the 2% discount, no matter how seemingly insignificant or opaque, carries deeper significance: federal securities regulators are actively adjusting existing rules to incorporate stablecoins as functional financial tools, not just peripheral assets.

Whether these adjustments can keep pace with market developments and whether the GENIUS Act’s promises will be fulfilled remains to be seen. But in the process of shifting from regulatory hostility to regulatory integration, it is these technical, often unnoticed efforts that determine whether policies can be translated into practice.