That is the third in a collection of articles by which we focus on current efforts by U.S. regulators and different our bodies to set expectations and requirements with respect to cryptocurrencies and different digital belongings and the influence of those efforts on companies engaged in digital asset actions. Read the series.
The President’s Working Group on Monetary Markets (PWG), along with the Federal Deposit Insurance coverage Company (FDIC) and the Workplace of the Comptroller of the Forex (OCC), launched a much-anticipated Report on Stablecoins (Report) on November 1, 2021, that outlines in broad phrases numerous concerns on learn how to convey stablecoins throughout the current regulatory perimeter.
Stablecoins are a sort of digital asset designed to keep up a secure worth relative to a nationwide forex or different reference asset or belongings.1 The Report focuses particularly on “fee stablecoins,” that are “designed to keep up a secure worth relative to a fiat forex and, subsequently, have the potential for use as a widespread technique of fee.”
As stablecoins have change into extra extensively used, issues have been raised concerning the dangers they pose to buyers and the steadiness of the monetary system. The Report urges Congress to go laws to handle the dangers posed by fee stablecoins to the broader economic system by, in substance, extending the Financial institution Holding Firm Act of 1956 (BHC Act) framework to fee stablecoin preparations. As mentioned beneath, this may require stablecoin issuers to be insured banks, thus subjecting an issuer and its associates to the consolidated supervisory and regulatory framework of the BHC Act and related U.S. banking legal guidelines. Within the absence of latest laws, the Report recommends measures by which U.S. federal banking regulators can apply the present regulatory framework to fee stablecoin preparations.
Potential Dangers Posed by Stablecoins
The Report identifies quite a few potential dangers which may be related to fee stablecoins. These embody the likelihood that a number of stablecoin preparations might (i) undergo a loss in confidence that causes them to lose worth, (ii) expertise fee methods outages or slowdowns, and/or (iii) focus the financial energy of a number of stablecoin gamers, harming competitors and client pursuits. The potential dangers are compounded by what the Report notes is a fragmented regulatory panorama that impedes U.S. regulators from successfully addressing these dangers.
- Lack of Worth: Dangers to Stablecoin Customers and Stablecoin Runs. The Report notes that stablecoins could also be topic to dangers of a “run” — i.e., mass withdrawals of funds by clients — ensuing from lack of confidence that itself is the product of a possible devaluation or liquidity occasion. The Report notes that runs will be “a self-reinforcing cycle of redemptions and fireplace gross sales of reserve belongings,” and the chance of a run might differ primarily based on the character and composition of the stablecoin’s reserve belongings. For instance, a stablecoin backed by insured deposits is more likely to have decrease dangers of a run in comparison with these backed by belongings not assured by the federal government corresponding to business paper different digital belongings. A run may hurt customers, unfold monetary contagion to different equally located stablecoin issuers or different kinds of monetary devices believed to have the same threat profile, the Report notes, and, underneath strained market situations, such a run may amplify a shock to the economic system and threaten the broader monetary system.
- Cost System Dangers. Stablecoins provide the prospect of extremely environment friendly fee processing, however the Report means that fee stablecoins might face lots of the identical sorts of dangers as conventional fee methods. These embody credit score threat, threat associated to improper or ineffective governance, operational threat, settlement threat and liquidity threat. These might come up in distinctive methods within the stablecoin context, provided that sure stablecoin preparations ponder decentralized decision-making and complicated operations the place no single group is accountable or accountable for threat administration or operational resiliency. To the extent that such dangers stay unaddressed or are improperly managed, they may influence fee system availability and immediately create monetary shocks or function as a channel by way of which shocks unfold.
- Dangers of Scale: Systemic Danger and Focus of Financial Energy. The Report discusses the potential {that a} stablecoin association might scale quickly and highlights a number of coverage issues.
The misery or failure of a stablecoin issuer or a key participant in a stablecoin association, corresponding to a custodial pockets supplier, may pose systemic threat to the economic system, the Report states.2
The Report additionally warns that the mixture of a stablecoin issuer or a custodial pockets supplier and a “business agency” may result in a focus of financial energy. Whereas the Report doesn’t outline “business agency,” the authors had been seemingly centered on established expertise, retail and social media corporations that, when mixed with a stablecoin association at scale, may pose dangers to the broader economic system. Such mixtures increase the identical competitors issues posed traditionally by the combination of banking and commerce underneath the logic that such mixtures might give a business agency unfair entry to credit score and an unfair benefit in cross-selling their items and providers.
- Regulatory Gaps. The Report discovered that stablecoin preparations will not be presently topic to a constant set of prudential regulatory requirements to handle the dangers mentioned above. Furthermore, the sheer variety of events concerned in any given association, and the operational complexity of those preparations, additional complicate supervisory oversight. To handle these gaps, the report stresses {that a} constant and complete regulatory framework is required.
Different Dangers Posed by Stablecoins
Digital asset buying and selling and decentralized finance (DeFi), lots of which depend on stablecoins, additionally pose dangers to market integrity, investor protections, efforts to fight cash laundering and the finance of terrorism (AML/CFT) and proliferation, the Report notes.
- Digital Asset Buying and selling Platforms and DeFi. The Report emphasizes that digital asset buying and selling and DeFi preparations increase market integrity and investor safety issues. DeFi broadly refers to quite a lot of monetary merchandise, providers, actions, and preparations supported by sensible contracts.3 The Report states that stablecoins facilitate digital buying and selling and DeFi actions by offering a secure digital asset to facilitate borrowing, lending and buying and selling towards extra unstable digital belongings. Digital asset buying and selling and DeFi give rise to operational dangers, and dangers associated to fraud, market manipulation and insider buying and selling, based on the Report. The place these actions contain advanced relationships or vital quantities of leverage, the broader monetary system could also be in danger. The Report stresses that it’s important to handle the numerous investor and market dangers posed by these actions, and notes that the Securities and Trade Fee (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Buying and selling Fee (CFTC) have broad enforcement, rulemaking and oversight authorities which may be employed to that finish.
- Illicit Finance. The Report additionally highlights that stablecoins, significantly people who function at scale and permit for cross-border funds, give rise to illicit finance issues and dangers to monetary integrity, together with violations of guidelines governing AML/CFT and proliferation. In america, most stablecoins are thought of to be “convertible digital currencies” and are handled as “worth that substitutes for forex” underneath laws of the U.S. Division of Treasury’s Monetary Crimes Enforcement Community (FinCEN). Directors and different individuals in stablecoin preparations usually should register with FinCEN as cash providers companies (MSBs) and adjust to related AML program necessities.
U.S. individuals, together with individuals providing providers associated to stablecoins, additionally should adjust to financial sanctions enforced by Treasury’s Workplace of Overseas Belongings Management (OFAC). OFAC has issued steerage on how corporations within the digital forex trade can construct risk-based sanctions compliance applications. (See our consumer alert “US Treasury Provides Detailed Guidance for the Virtual Currency Industry on Sanctions Compliance” (November 10, 2021).)
The Report signifies that Treasury will proceed to evaluate the dangers of stablecoins and search assets to extend supervision on this area. Treasury may even proceed to encourage different international locations to implement worldwide AML/CFT requirements, and it has historically been very supportive of intergovernmental Monetary Motion Activity Power (FATF) initiatives. (See our consumer alert “FATF Updates Its Global Guidelines for the Regulation of Virtual Assets With an Eye to Emerging Technologies” (November 11, 2021).)
Suggestions Associated to Cost Stablecoins
To handle the potential dangers and issues recognized by the PWG, the Report recommends the passage of latest laws and the adoption of a collection of interim measures, with a deal with fee stablecoins which have essentially the most potential to function at scale and pose dangers to the broader economic system.
Laws
The Report recommends that Congress go new legal guidelines that primarily would lengthen the present BHC Act framework to fee stablecoin preparations. Below this method, the issuer of a fee stablecoin (i.e., an entity that points and redeems stablecoins and maintains the reserve belongings) must be an FDIC-insured financial institution. The Report means that FDIC insurance coverage would assist resolve the chance of runs recognized by the PWG. Furthermore, the guardian firm of an FDIC insured issuer can be topic to regulation and supervision by the Federal Reserve as a financial institution holding firm, which might probably deal with the shortage of consolidated supervision recognized within the Report. The BHC Act’s prohibition of sure nonbank exercise would additionally apply, mitigating issues related to mixing banking and commerce. Associates of the issuer which might be concerned in securities and commodities could possibly be functionally regulated by the SEC and CFTC, respectively, as they’re at present underneath the present BHC Act framework.
To additional alleviate issues about fee system threat, the Report argues that custodial pockets suppliers needs to be topic to applicable federal oversight. Laws ought to present the federal supervisor of a stablecoin issuer with the authority to require any entity that performs actions which might be important to the functioning of a stablecoin association, corresponding to custodial pockets suppliers, meet applicable risk-management requirements.
The Report additionally expresses concern about systemic threat and focus of financial energy, and urges laws that will require stablecoin issuers to adjust to restrictions limiting affiliation with business entities.
Furthermore, supervisors ought to have authority to implement requirements that will promote interoperability amongst stablecoins. The Stories means that Congress contemplate requirements relevant to custodial pockets suppliers, together with restrictions on affiliation with business entities and on the usage of customers’ fee knowledge.
Interim Measures
Within the absence of Congressional motion, the Report urges banking and different regulators to take motion to handle the particular dangers associated to stablecoins inside every company’s jurisdiction and to coordinate and collaborate on problems with frequent curiosity. For instance, in evaluating a constitution utility, the Report notes that banking companies ought to search to make sure that candidates deal with the dangers related to stablecoin issuance and different associated providers carried out by the banking group or its third-party service suppliers.
The place stablecoins qualify as securities, commodities and/or derivatives, utility by the SEC and CFTC of federal securities or derivative-related legal guidelines can present vital investor and market protections. The Report notes that different authorities, together with the Division of Justice, might contemplate whether or not or how part 21(a)(2) of the Glass-Steagall Act4 (requiring that individuals who settle for sure deposits be topic to applicable examination and regulation) is relevant to stablecoin preparations, probably subjecting stablecoin issuers to oversight. As well as, the Report factors out that the Shopper Monetary Safety Bureau (CFPB), by way of the appliance of client monetary safety legal guidelines, might help guarantee safeguards within the client funds sector.
Lastly, the Report recommends that the Monetary Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) contemplate steps obtainable to it to handle the dangers outlined within the Report, such because the designation of sure actions carried out inside stablecoin preparations as systemically vital fee, clearing and settlement (PCS) actions, or more likely to change into so. This is able to allow an applicable company to ascertain risk-management requirements for monetary establishments collaborating in designated PCS actions. In response to the Report, these may embody necessities pertaining to the belongings backing the stablecoin, the operation of the stablecoin association and different prudential requirements. Below such a scheme, monetary establishments that interact in designated PCS actions additionally can be topic to an examination and enforcement framework. The Report notes that any such designation ought to comply with a clear course of.
Outlook
The Report displays rising concern amongst U.S. coverage makers and regulatory companies concerning the rising stablecoin market and the affect of the U.S. federal banking regulators in framing the answer outlined within the Report. It’s unlikely, although, that Congress will quickly act on the Report’s suggestions. Equally, it’s unclear how shortly the assorted U.S. regulatory companies might search to implement the suggestions, significantly given the variety of vacancies at key management positions of those companies. We anticipate the person companies to proceed to behave on these points absent laws, however with growing efforts at coverage coordination.
Firms concerned in stablecoin exercise ought to anticipate that authorities companies will make use of current authorities, together with enforcement authority, to handle the dangers described within the Report. The Report’s emphasis on FDIC insurance coverage means that non-deposit-taking corporations concerned in stablecoins are unlikely to have the ability to receive constitution approval from the OCC or different federal banking regulators to have interaction in enterprise with a digital asset focus, together with by way of the present fintech constitution or belief financial institution constitution.
Firms must also take note of developments on the state stage and look to states as venues for acquiring the related license or constitution to function, provided that states have appreciable regulatory authority over stablecoins by advantage of their cash transmission and banking legal guidelines. The Convention of State Financial institution Supervisors (CSBS), which didn’t take part within the preparation of the Report however is a member of FSOC and influential among the many congressional banking committees, has expressed curiosity in stablecoin regulation. Firms must also anticipate better scrutiny on the multi-lateral stage, highlighted by FATF efforts to push for a constant and strong worldwide regulatory response to stablecoins.
_______________
1 Stablecoin operators might try and stabilize the worth of a digital asset by backing such belongings with a number of reserve belongings or by way of the usage of advanced pc algorithms.
2 A digital pockets permits a person to obtain, retailer and switch digital belongings to a different customers. A custodial pockets supplier is an enterprise that holds and transfers the digital belongings on a person’s behalf.
3 “Good contracts” are items of pc code that routinely execute specified steps when sure occasions or situations happen. They don’t seem to be “contracts” within the authorized sense.
4 12 U.S.C. § 378(a)(2).
