The Solana Foundation announced the launch of STRIDE (Solana Trust, Resilience and Infrastructure for DeFi Enterprises) and the Solana Incident Response Network (SIRN) on Monday. STRIDE establishes security requirements and independent evaluations for Solana protocols, with the Solana Foundation funding formal verification for protocols above $100M TVL and providing 24/7 threat monitoring for those above $10M TVL. SIRN, a membership-based network led by founding members Asymmetric Research, OpenZeppelin Security, Neodyme, Multisig, and Zero Shadow, offers real-time incident response across the ecosystem with prioritization by TVL.

The initiatives represent an ecosystem-wide investment in security standards as Solana scales. STRIDE includes hands-on evaluations and a public repository of findings available to all protocols. All three programs—STRIDE, threat monitoring, and formal verification—are funded by the Solana Foundation, with SIRN available to all protocols on the network.

Sources: Solana Foundation

This article was generated automatically by The Defiant’s AI news system from publicly available sources.

Stablecoin supply on Ethereum has reached an all-time high of $180 billion, up 150% over the past three years, according to Token Terminal. Ethereum currently holds a 60% market share in the stablecoin sector, dominating the landscape for dollar-pegged tokens across blockchain networks.

Token Terminal projects $1.7 trillion in stablecoin inflows to blockchain networks over the next four years. Assuming Ethereum’s market share gradually declines from 60% to 50%, the network could capture approximately $850 billion in new stablecoin flows by 2030.

Sources: Token Terminal

This article was generated automatically by The Defiant’s AI news system from publicly available sources.

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is advancing a regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers that operate under its supervision, in line with the GENIUS Act. The FDIC’s board voted to publish a proposal establishing minimum standards on reserves, redemption mechanics, capital requirements, risk management and custody for stablecoin issuers and the insured depository institutions (IDIs) that fall under its purview. Signed into law roughly nine months ago, GENIUS grants the FDIC authority to oversee stablecoin activity within the banks it supervises, with a broad aim of bringing more robust oversight to a fast-growing corner of the digital-asset ecosystem. The agency noted that the proposed rules would apply to reserve-backed payment stablecoins and are scheduled to take effect on January 18, 2027, unless earlier action is taken.

The FDIC underscored that, while the proposed rule would insure reserve deposits backing a payment stablecoin, it would not extend FDIC insurance to stablecoin holders themselves. In its view, treating holders as insured depositors would be inconsistent with GENIUS Act provisions, which limit deposit insurance coverage to traditional deposit accounts rather than tokenized payments. Nevertheless, the FDIC argued that by elevating the regulatory and supervisory standards around stablecoin reserves and governance, the rules would create a more secure environment for users who rely on stablecoins for smoother payments and liquidity needs.

Key takeaways

• The FDIC proposes standards on reserves, redemption, capital, risk management and custody for stablecoin issuers and supervised banks, aligning with the GENIUS Act framework.
• FDIC insurance would cover reserves backing payment stablecoins, but not the stablecoin holders themselves, reflecting GENIUS Act’s limits on deposit insurance for digital-asset tokens.
• The GENIUS Act authorized FDIC oversight of stablecoin activity within its supervision footprint; the regulatory timetable points to a January 18, 2027 effective date for many rules, with potential earlier actions.
• The FDIC’s initiative is part of a broader, multi-agency push to regulate stablecoins, with the OCC also moving to implement GENIUS Act provisions and potentially covering a broader range of activities.
• Public input is invited through a 60-day comment window on 144 questions, signaling an extensive consultation process as regulators shape the regime.

Regulatory architecture under GENIUS Act takes shape

The FDIC’s move represents a meaningful step in translating the GENIUS Act’s broad mandate into concrete, bank-centered standards for stablecoins. By focusing on reserve management and governance, the proposal aims to reduce liquidity and credit risk that could arise if stablecoin reserves are not held in a prudent and auditable manner. The agency’s emphasis on custody and risk management signals a priority on how reserves are held and safeguarded, a critical concern for both issuers and users who rely on the stability of these digital tokens in everyday payments and cross-border transfers.

The GENIUS Act, enacted last year, gave the FDIC new authority to supervise stablecoin activity within the banking system it already oversees. That framework is designed to ensure that as stablecoins grow in breadth and usage, the institutions backing them adhere to consistent, enforceable standards. In the FDIC’s view, this approach should provide greater assurance that payment-stablecoin networks operate with heightened governance and capital resilience, reducing potential shock transmission to the broader financial system.

What would be insured—and what would not

A central nuance in the FDIC proposal is the distinction between reserve insurance and holder protection. The agency confirmed that reserve deposits backing a payment stablecoin would fall under the FDIC’s insured deposits framework, at least for the portion of funds held in its supervised banks. However, this protection would not extend to the token holders themselves. The FDIC argued that treating stablecoin holders as insured depositors would run counter to GENIUS Act limitations on insurance coverage for payment-stablecoin users. In practice, this means that while the rails and buffers supporting a paid stablecoin could be shielded by insurance-like guarantees, the value risk borne by holders would remain separate from traditional deposit protections.

Despite the stance on holder protection, the FDIC stressed that the proposed rules would nonetheless enhance security and oversight for those using payment stablecoins by subjecting reserve management and custody to elevated standards. In its view, that combination should foster greater confidence among users and counterparties who rely on stablecoins for on-chain settlements, remittances and retail payments, especially during periods of market stress.

Feedback, timing and a wider regulatory arc

Public participation is a centerpiece of the FDIC’s approach. The agency invited the public to comment on 144 questions related to how it should regulate stablecoin issuers, with a 60-day window for responses. The consultation process follows a December 19 release detailing an earlier GENIUS Act implementation step that established an application procedure for insured depository institutions seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. The current proposal thus sits within a broader, staged effort to codify how financial institutions can participate in the stablecoin economy under federal supervision.

The FDIC’s activity is part of a coordinated federal push on digital-asset regulation. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is also advancing GENIUS Act implementations, and the OCC’s track is described as broader in scope than the FDIC’s, covering national bank subsidiaries and certain nonbank issuers. The dual-track approach underscores how U.S. regulators are attempting to thread the needle between fostering innovation in digital payments and ensuring they do so within well-defined risk-management and consumer-protection boundaries.

Why this matters for markets, users and builders

For stablecoin issuers and banks alike, the FDIC’s proposal could redefine the cost and feasibility of issuing payment-stablecoins through FDIC-supervised institutions. A set of uniform reserve and custody standards can reduce fragmentation across different banking partners and issuer structures, providing a clearer pathway for compliance and oversight. This, in turn, may affect how quickly issuers can scale, how they structure reserve holdings, and how custodial arrangements are designed to meet heightened standards. While the insurance of reserves could boost confidence among users and counterparties, issuers may face additional capital and operational requirements that influence product design, liquidity management and the speed of settlement in volatile market conditions.

From a risk perspective, the emphasis on robust governance around reserves and redemption mechanics is aimed at mitigating a key class of failure modes that previously rattled stablecoin markets. If implemented as proposed, the rules could help prevent liquidity stress scenarios that arise when reserves are illiquid or poorly controlled, contributing to a more stable on-chain economy at a time when stablecoins have become a central component of on-chain commerce and liquidity provision.

Investors and builders will want to watch how the agencies harmonize their rules, how fast the 2027 effective date approaches, and how the public comment shapes final language. The interplay between the FDIC’s rules and the OCC’s broader GENIUS Act program will be particularly consequential, potentially creating a unified federal approach to stablecoins that could set global benchmarks for custodian standards, reserve transparency and prudential requirements for issuers.

Beyond the technical details, the broader takeaway is that the U.S. is moving toward a more formalized, bank-centric governance model for stablecoins. This shift could influence where stablecoin reserves are held, how issuers structure their corporate and regulatory relationships, and how users evaluate the safety and reliability of digital payment rails in the coming years.

Keep an eye on how the public comments frame the discussion. The 60-day input period will likely surface perspectives from banks, stablecoin issuers, consumer advocates and other stakeholders, shaping the final iteration of these rules and their ultimate impact on the evolving landscape of digital payments in the United States.

As regulators prepare to publish the final rules, market participants should assess potential stress-test scenarios, reserve-management practices and custody structures that could become industry benchmarks. The GENIUS Act’s intent is clear: bring higher standards and greater scrutiny to a sector that touches everyday commerce, while preserving the core benefits that stablecoins offer in terms of efficiency and interoperability across financial rails.

Readers should remain attentive to updates from both the FDIC and the OCC as they expand on their respective GENIUS Act plans, and to how issuers adapt their product designs in response to the evolving regulatory terrain.

The FDIC’s latest step marks a significant milestone in the ongoing effort to codify the security and reliability of stablecoins within the U.S. financial framework. The next few months will reveal how the 144 questions are addressed and how the final rules translate into real-world change for stablecoin participants across banking and digital-asset markets.

Closing perspective: As the regulatory scaffolding around stablecoins thickens, market participants should watch closely how the finalized rules balance innovation with safety, and how the two regulatory tracks converge to shape a more predictable, bank-backed landscape for digital payments.

The Polygon Foundation confirmed the Giugliano hardfork will activate on mainnet at block 85,268,500 on April 8 at approximately 2 p.m. UTC. The upgrade targets faster finality and improved fee transparency, allowing block producers to announce blocks earlier and reducing transaction confirmation time to finality.

The hardfork is part of Polygon’s broader push toward higher throughput for payments and tokenized assets. The upgrade follows a challenging 2025 for the network.

Sources: Polygon Foundation Forum | Polygonscan | BeInCrypto

This article was generated automatically by The Defiant’s AI news system from publicly available sources.

Some past enforcement actions against cryptocurrency companies lacked clear investor benefit and misinterpreted federal securities laws, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said on Tuesday. 

Since the 2022 fiscal year, the SEC brought 95 actions and $2.3 billion in penalties for “book-and-record violations,” it said in a statement about its enforcement results for 2025. 

“Together with seven crypto firm registration-related and six ‘definition of a dealer’ cases, these cases identified no direct investor harm from those violations, produced no investor benefit or protection.” 

It also reflected a “bias for volume of cases brought versus matters of investor protection,” a misallocation of resources and a misinterpretation of federal securities laws, the SEC said. 

It is the latest example of the regulator’s shift in approach towards enforcement since it came under new leadership under SEC Chair Paul Atkins in April 2025. 

His predecessor, former SEC Chair Gary Gensler, has been accused of pursuing a regulation-by-enforcement approach toward crypto. Since his departure, the SEC has adopted a friendlier stance toward digital assets.

SEC said it is shifting its focus to quality over quantity

In the lead-up to Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration, the SEC enforcement division engaged in an “unprecedented rush” to bring cases and moved ahead with an “aggressive pursuit of novel legal theories,” the agency said.

Atkins said the agency has since shifted away from this approach, ending regulation by enforcement and refocusing on the commission’s core mission by prioritizing cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity.

“We have redirected resources toward the types of misconduct that inflict the greatest harm—particularly fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust—and away from approaches that prioritized volume and record-setting penalties over true investor protection,” he added.

Consulting firm Cornerstone Research reported in November that under Atkins, the number of enforcement actions against public companies, including those involving crypto, decreased by about 30% in fiscal 2025 compared with fiscal 2024.

In connection with 2025 enforcement actions, the SEC said it obtained orders for monetary relief totaling $17.9 billion, comprising $7.2 billion in civil penalties and the remainder in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.

Related: Crypto market safe harbor lands at White House for review

“This year’s enforcement results clarify the flaws of these actions and their respective penalties and re-establish the definition and measure of enforcement effectiveness, grounded in Congress’ original intent and focused on bringing actions that actually prevent investor harm instead of headlines and inflated numbers,” the SEC said. 

Some crypto companies are still in the firing line

Despite the SEC’s enforcement shift, several crypto companies were still hit with enforcement actions in 2025.

In May 2025, Unicoin and four of its current and former executives were sued by the SEC for allegedly raising $100 million by misleading investors about certificates that purported to convey rights to receive Unicoin tokens and stock. However, the platform has accused the agency of distorting its regulatory statements to build a case. 

The SEC also filed a civil complaint against Ramil Ventura Palafox in April 2025, CEO of Praetorian Group International, for allegedly orchestrating a $200 million Ponzi scheme. A parallel criminal case brought by the US Department of Justice resulted in Palafox’s February sentence of 20 years in prison. 

Magazine: Your guide to surviving this mini-crypto winter