This year, Tether rolled out USAT — launched with U.S. standards in mind and issued through U.S. banking partner Anchorage Digital. So far, it remains at a relatively low level of usage.

“Non-compliant stablecoins cannot be used by U.S. institutions when the safe harbor expires in 2028, but we don’t expect the market to wait,” said Kevin Wysocki, head of policy at Anchorage Digital, the crypto-native bank that manages a number of stablecoins. He said the company believes institutional users will move toward “compliant, bank-issued digital dollars well ahead of that deadline.”

Do they have two years?

GENIUS included a three-year grace period for compliance, and two years remain, after which U.S. crypto platforms won’t be able to offer stablecoins whose issuers haven’t checked all the regulatory boxes. However, there seems to be some disagreement over whether foreign issuers are meant to enjoy that same safe harbor. Some lawyers in finance assume that Tether gets until July 18, 2028, to comply, but others have suggested that foreign issuers would have to comply the moment GENIUS officially goes live, which is likely six months from now in January.

“Upon the effectiveness of the GENIUS Act, foreign issuers will need to immediately comply with lawful orders to seize and freeze coins held by illicit actors, but they will have a runway of approximately two more years to prepare for the additional requirements so that their coins may remain eligible for listing on U.S. centralized trading platforms,” said Justin Levine, a lawyer at Davis Polk who advises clients on stablecoin issues, adding that one of those remaining requirements — registration with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — is likely to require a “significant undertaking”

U.S. stablecoin regulators missed a key rulemaking deadline tied to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, despite issuing multiple proposals and gathering public input over the past year. The deadline passed on Saturday, marking one year since the law was signed—yet no final regulations had been published by the end of that window.

The GENIUS Act, signed by President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025, created the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for stablecoins. While several agencies advanced the process through notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs), rulemaking trackers maintained by Chapman and crypto investment firm Paradigm show that final rules were not issued before the statutory deadline.

Key takeaways

• Despite a full year of rule development, U.S. agencies had not released final GENIUS Act regulations by the deadline, according to Chapman and Paradigm trackers.
• GENIUS remains valid law, but the lack of final rules increases compliance uncertainty for stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions.
• Federal agencies—including the Treasury Department and banking regulators—published multiple NPRMs covering registration, supervision, reserve expectations, and AML-related implementation.
• Anchorage Digital used the one-year GENIUS milestone to renew a push for broader digital-asset market structure legislation through the CLARITY Act.

What the deadline miss means for stablecoin compliance

Missing the statutory deadline does not automatically invalidate the GENIUS Act itself. However, it can materially affect how quickly regulated entities can operationalize the framework. Stablecoin issuers, payment-focused platforms, and institutions planning to participate in issuance or custody have generally relied on final rules to guide compliance programs, governance processes, and supervisory expectations.

According to rulemaking trackers by law firm Chapman and Paradigm, multiple agencies published proposals during the past year but did not conclude the rulemaking process in time. The agencies named in the trackers include the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve Board, all of which issued NPRMs without publishing final versions before the deadline.

That gap is likely to be most consequential for issuers seeking clarity on how regulators intend to evaluate reserve management, supervisory standards, and compliance obligations—areas where the GENIUS framework is intended to bring consistency across federal oversight.

GENIUS’s first year: agencies issued 10 proposed rulemakings

Paradigm’s tracking data indicates that federal regulators issued 10 NPRMs during the GENIUS Act’s first year. The proposals spanned the act’s broader implementation and the mechanics of how different types of regulated entities would participate.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury released four proposals focused on implementation and eligibility questions, including how regulators should determine when state stablecoin regimes are “similar” to the federal framework, registration requirements for foreign stablecoin issuers, and guidance tied to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance.

Meanwhile, the OCC issued two NPRMs addressing nationally chartered payment stablecoin issuers, including approval requirements and supervisory standards intended for those entities.

The FDIC published one NPRM for FDIC-supervised institutions that issue payment stablecoins, centering on supervisory expectations and operational requirements such as reserve management.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) also moved forward with proposed rules designed to enable federally insured credit unions to participate in stablecoin issuance.

Finally, federal banking agencies jointly proposed an interagency implementation rule meant to harmonize supervision across the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC—an attempt to reduce inconsistencies in oversight that can arise when multiple regulators examine similar activities under different supervisory practices.

In practical terms, the breadth of proposals shows regulators were actively working through the architecture of GENIUS. Still, the failure to finalize the rules by the deadline leaves open questions about how the draft proposals will be resolved and what changes—if any—will be made after public comment periods close.

Anchorage renews its CLARITY push as GENIUS rules remain unfinished

As regulators continued to work through proposed GENIUS rules, Anchorage Digital—a federally chartered crypto bank—used the GENIUS one-year anniversary to call again for Congress to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY). In a report published on Friday, Anchorage said it was “renewing” its request for lawmakers to extend stablecoin market-structure rules into the broader digital asset economy.

CLARITY is intended to establish the first federal regulatory framework for digital assets more broadly. Anchorage’s messaging also aligns with ongoing industry debate about how far existing banking rules should extend to stablecoins, particularly regarding whether yield offerings could be structured without triggering deposit-substitute concerns.

Earlier coverage noted that CLARITY advanced through the Senate Banking Committee in May. Industry groups, including state banking associations, have argued that the bill could enable crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without meeting requirements they say traditional banks must follow.

On July 13, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), among other state banking associations, sent a joint letter urging Senate leaders to provide more detail on CLARITY’s stablecoin yield provisions. The letter also argued that amendments are needed to ensure payment stablecoins remain transaction tools rather than operating like deposit substitutes.

Legislative uncertainty has also been visible in market participants’ expectations. On June 26, Galaxy Digital reportedly cut its odds of CLARITY becoming law in 2026 to 50%, citing the lack of a unified Senate Banking–Agriculture text, no firm floor schedule, and a narrowing legislative window as lawmakers near departure periods.

Taken together, the regulatory timeline under GENIUS and the parallel legislative push for CLARITY point to a broader policy reality for the sector: stablecoins are increasingly regulated through federal rulemaking, but questions about market structure and adjacent digital asset rules remain bound to Congress rather than agencies alone.

What to watch next as proposed rules move toward finality

With the GENIUS rulemaking deadline passed and final regulations still pending, stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions should watch for the agencies named in the rulemaking trackers to publish final rules—or revised drafts—after comment periods. Investors and operators may also want to monitor whether the interagency harmonization proposal results in more consistent supervisory expectations across regulators, and whether congressional momentum on CLARITY meaningfully changes the policy direction around stablecoin yields and broader digital asset market structure.

Derivatives account for the vast majority of crypto trading volumes, but options remain a relatively small corner of the market, dominated by a handful of established venues including Deribit, CME Group and Binance. New entrants are increasingly betting that broader adoption of options will follow the institutionalization of digital assets.

The move is the latest step in Kraken’s transformation from a crypto exchange into a broader financial platform offering trading, payments and other digital asset services.

Growing the market, not just market share

Rather than focusing solely on taking market share from incumbent venues, Theodorou believes the larger opportunity is expanding the addressable market by making options easier to use.

“The existing options market in crypto has been built for a narrow slice of the trader base,” Theodorou said.

“Our offering broadens access through a straightforward, dollar-settled contract in the same account clients already use for spot and futures,” she added.

A retail-first approach

According to Theodorou, the slow growth of crypto options is less a demand problem than a product design problem.

“The gap in crypto options isn’t demand, it’s design,” Theodorou said.

She notes that existing crypto options platforms have largely catered to institutional traders and market makers, while retail traders instead have gravitated toward perpetual futures, which became the industry’s dominant speculative product because of their relative simplicity.

US regulatory agencies missed the rulemaking deadline under the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act on Saturday, which marked one year since the law was signed. 

Several US regulatory agencies published proposed rules and collected public feedback during the past year, but no final regulations were issued before the deadline.

These agencies include the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve Board, which issued proposed rules but no final rules, according to rulemaking trackers by law firm Chapman and crypto investment company Paradigm.

Missing the statutory deadline does not invalidate the GENIUS Act, but the unfinished rules may result in regulatory uncertainty for stablecoin issuers. 

The GENIUS Act established the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for stablecoins in the US. The act was signed into law by US President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025.

Related: ABA, state banking groups push back on CLARITY Act stablecoin yield provisions

Regulators issued 10 rule proposals during the GENIUS Act’s first year

Federal regulators issued 10 notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the year since the GENIUS Act was signed into law, according to Paradigm.

The Treasury Department issued four proposals covering the broader implementation of the act, including standards for determining whether state stablecoin regulatory regimes are similar to the federal framework, registration requirements for foreign stablecoin issuers and guidelines for compliance with anti-money laundering measures.

Rulemaking progress after the GENIUS Act was signed into law. Source: Paradigm.

The OCC issued two NPRMs covering nationally chartered payment stablecoin issuers, approval requirements and supervisory standards.

The FDIC issued one NPRM on FDIC-supervised institutions that issue payment stablecoins, focused on supervisory expectations and operational standards such as reserve management.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) proposed rules enabling federally insured credit unions to participate in stablecoin issuance.

Finally, federal banking agencies jointly proposed an interagency implementation rule to harmonize supervision across the OCC, Federal Reserve and FDIC, aiming to ensure consistent supervisory expectations across all federal regulators.

Anchorage urges lawmakers to pass CLARITY Act

Federally chartered crypto bank Anchorage Digital has urged lawmakers to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY).

“On GENIUS’ one-year anniversary, we’re renewing our call for Congress to pass the CLARITY Act and extend the clear market-structure rules that worked for stablecoins to the broader digital asset economy,” Anchorage Digital wrote in a Friday report.

The CLARITY Act seeks to establish the first federal regulatory framework for digital assets in the US. It cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May, though banking industry groups argued that it would allow crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without facing the same requirements as traditional banks.

On July 13, state banking associations, including the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), sent a joint letter urging Senate leaders to provide more detail on the CLARITY Act’s stablecoin yield provisions and argued that new amendments need to prevent payment stablecoins from acting as deposit substitutes rather than pure transaction tools.

On June 26, Galaxy Digital cut its odds of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 to 50%, citing the lack of a unified Senate Banking-Agriculture text, no firm floor schedule and a narrowing legislative window before lawmakers leave Washington. 

Magazine: Gambling on random Pokémon cards: Onchain gagcha hits record high as crypto sinks

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has reportedly begun a formal sanctions process related to the November 2025 $36 million exploit on Upbit, the country’s major crypto exchange operated by Dunamu. According to Yonhap News, the regulator has sent Dunamu an inspection opinion letter following a review of the incident.

The letter effectively opens the next stage of enforcement. It also gives Dunamu an opportunity to respond to the inspection findings before the FSS moves to notify the company of any proposed sanctions.

Key takeaways

• The FSS has reportedly issued an inspection opinion letter to Dunamu, kicking off a sanctions procedure after Upbit’s November 2025 $36 million hack.
• Yonhap reported that regulators are assessing whether Upbit violated the Virtual Asset User Protection Act, even though the law reportedly lacks direct penalties for cyberattacks and computer hacks.
• Upbit previously said it reimbursed affected customers using its own balance sheet funds and froze certain assets after the breach.
• Authorities are also weighing changes to South Korea’s Digital Asset Basic Act to add sanctions and compensation provisions for hacking and system failures.
• Upbit said it upgraded its wallet infrastructure after the incident and later introduced an automatic onchain tracing service intended to support recovery efforts.

FSS inspection letter launches enforcement step

Yonhap News reported Sunday that the FSS recently sent Dunamu an inspection opinion letter connected to the $36 million exploit that affected Upbit in late November 2025. The report frames the letter as the formal start of a sanctions process, with Dunamu able to respond to the findings before the regulator issues details of any proposed penalties.

The FSS is assessing whether the exchange breached the Virtual Asset User Protection Act. However, Yonhap noted that the statute does not provide direct sanctions provisions specifically for cyberattacks or computer hacking incidents.

This creates a compliance pressure point for exchanges and operators in South Korea: even when losses originate from security failures outside traditional financial market conduct, regulators are still attempting to map the incident to existing consumer protection obligations.

Criticism focused on delayed disclosure

Yonhap said Upbit faced criticism for delaying its announcement of the $36 million hack. The breach reportedly lasted about 54 minutes, beginning at 4:42 a.m. KST on November 27, but Upbit did not publicly disclose the incident until the end of the day.

The timing of the public disclosure, according to Yonhap, coincided with a merger-related event involving Naver Financial, after which the exchange finally announced the exploit. The regulatory review described in the report suggests that disclosure timing—along with incident handling—may be a key part of the FSS’s evaluation under the user protection framework.

Cointelegraph said it approached Dunamu for comment on the matter. No further response is included in the provided text.

Regulatory gap and proposed legislative changes

Yonhap also reported that South Korean authorities are considering how to address the current legal gap. The outlet said officials plan to add sanctions and compensation provisions for hacking and computer system failures into the second phase of the Digital Asset Basic Act.

For market participants, the significance is practical: a clearer statutory basis could shift enforcement from interpretive reviews—such as whether a hack violates broader user-protection obligations—to direct, incident-specific penalties and compensation duties. In other words, the likely focus may expand from “did the operator comply with existing rules?” to “did the operator meet explicit standards designed for cyber incidents?”

Until those amendments take effect, operators may remain exposed to enforcement theories rooted in consumer protection and operational responsibility, even where the law lacks cyberattack-specific sanction language.

Upbit’s response: reimbursements, wallet overhaul, and tracing

Upbit’s public response to the November 2025 exploit emphasized customer reimbursement and infrastructure changes. In a statement released after the incident, the exchange said it froze roughly 2.3 billion won (about $1.5 million) worth of funds. Upbit also said it would fully reimburse affected customers using its own balance sheet assets.

Separately, Upbit said it initiated an overhaul of its crypto wallet architecture after the exploit and migrated all assets from the wallets implicated in the incident. The exchange’s stated objective was to reduce exposure to potential vulnerabilities that could allow similar attacks to succeed.

In December 2025, Upbit said it developed an automatic onchain tracking service called the Onchain AI Tracer System, intended to trace the path of stolen funds and support recovery efforts.

These operational updates matter in the regulator’s context because they may influence how authorities assess whether Upbit took adequate steps both immediately after the breach and in the subsequent months. Even when reimbursement addresses direct user losses, regulators may still consider whether changes demonstrate robust incident prevention, transparent communication, and effective post-incident controls.

Upbit also ranks among the larger spot crypto exchanges in South Korea and globally, according to CoinMarketCap’s exchange rankings, which use scoring that includes traffic, liquidity, and trading volume.

Going forward, the key development to watch is Dunamu’s response to the FSS inspection opinion letter, since it will shape what sanctions—if any—are ultimately proposed. At the same time, traders and users should monitor the legislative process around the Digital Asset Basic Act’s next phase, because any move toward explicit hacking-related sanctions and compensation could materially alter how compliance is judged after major security incidents.