For banks, broker-dealers, and clearing firms, the primary obstacle to engaging with crypto has rarely been philosophical skepticism. It has instead been the balance-sheet frictions digital assets bring with them, and the many regulatory pitfalls still surrounding the crypto industry, particularly in the U.S.
But the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is attempting to address that friction. On , staff from the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets issued updated guidance relating to the accounting treatment of payment stablecoins, a move signaling a step toward integrating certain stablecoins into the regulated securities ecosystem.
The new guidance permits broker-dealers to apply a 2% capital “haircut” to certain qualifying stablecoins when calculating regulatory capital. This effectively means firms may now recognize roughly 98% of a stablecoin’s value toward their capital requirements.
Capital treatment is a critical regulatory signal. It dictates what assets regulators deem money-like and what remains speculative. By allowing firms to count nearly 98% of a qualifying stablecoin’s value toward regulatory capital, the SEC has moved these instruments closer to cash and high-quality liquid assets in the hierarchy governing balance-sheet construction.
A 100% haircut renders an asset functionally unusable for capital purposes. A 2% haircut allows it to function more like operational cash.
While not formal rulemaking, the move signals to broker-dealers, tokenization platforms, and institutional market infrastructure providers that stablecoins may be transitioning into a real-world operational tool.
Why the SEC’s Updated Guidance Matters
Under traditional capital rules, assets perceived as volatile or operationally complex receive steep “haircuts,” forcing institutions to hold more capital against them. This makes such assets expensive to warehouse and unattractive for core financial workflows like settlement, collateral management, or liquidity provisioning.
The paradox surrounding stablecoins was that while blockchain technology promised faster settlement, programmable payments, and the possibility of round-the-clock markets, the regulatory capital penalties attached to holding them rendered those advantages largely theoretical.
The SEC’s change materially lowers both the cost and balance-sheet friction associated with holding stablecoins – the core dynamic that previously limited their adoption by banks and broker-dealers. The update is not a blanket endorsement of the stablecoin sector, but a conditional recognition that certain instruments, if structured and regulated appropriately, can serve legitimate transactional roles inside securities markets.
The implications extend beyond trading desks. If stablecoins can be held with near-cash treatment, they become candidates for collateral management, securities settlement, and cross-border liquidity operations. Broker-dealers could use them to compress settlement timelines. Market makers could deploy them to move capital continuously rather than waiting for banking windows. Over time, this could address one of the most anachronistic features of modern finance: markets that trade at digital speed while money still moves in batches.
Notably, the SEC has not amended Rule 15c3-1 itself. Instead, it has acted through staff-level interpretive guidance, offering flexibility while avoiding the procedural weight of formal rulemaking.
The SEC’s posture also aligns with the broader statutory environment emerging around stablecoins, particularly the recently enacted GENIUS Act, which establishes a framework for payment stablecoins subject to defined reserve, supervision, and operational requirements. By anchoring its guidance to stablecoins that fit within this emerging legal category, the SEC is drawing a line between instruments designed to function as regulated payment tools and those operating in less transparent environments.
Despite its significance, the SEC’s action is deliberately narrow. The guidance applies to proprietary positions held by broker-dealers, not broadly to customer assets. It assumes rigorous qualification standards for stablecoins and does not eliminate the need for firms to manage liquidity, custody, and operational risks.
Whether this regulatory opening leads to meaningful transformation depends less on policy language than on institutional uptake. Broker-dealers must now decide whether the capital relief justifies building new operational capabilities, while stablecoin issuers must demonstrate transparency and resilience sufficient to meet supervisory scrutiny.
Commissioner Hester M. Peirce praised the staff guidance, stating that “a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins.”
