ISO Compliance Insights & Best Practices
CART
ISO Compliance Insights & Best Practices
A payment stablecoin, under the GENIUS Act, is a digital asset that is used or designed to be used for payment or settlement, whose issuer is obligated to redeem it for a fixed amount of monetary value and represents that it will hold a stable value against that amount. Section 2(22) of Public Law 119-27 says that in two positive limbs and then removes three things from the definition: national currency, deposits, and securities. Everything the Act does after that depends on whether a token is inside or outside those thirty-odd words.
This guide applies the definition as enacted. It matters because from 18 January 2027 only a permitted issuer may issue a payment stablecoin in the United States, because a token that is one but is not so issued is treated differently for accounting and margin under section 3(g), and because a token that is not one may not be marketed as one under section 4(e)(3). The definition is the gate; the enrolled text is on govinfo.
Section 2(22)(A) requires both of the following. First, the digital asset is, or is designed to be, used as a means of payment or settlement. Second, its issuer is obligated to convert, redeem or repurchase it for a fixed amount of monetary value, and represents that it will maintain, or creates the reasonable expectation that it will maintain, a stable value relative to a fixed amount of monetary value.
The first limb is about purpose, and it is read from what the issuer does and says: the stated use case, the venues, the integrations, the promotion. A token designed for payment is one even before anyone pays with it. The second limb has two sub-parts and both are needed. A token redeemable at a fixed dollar amount but never held out as stable fails the representation sub-part; a token held out as stable but redeemable only into another stablecoin fails the redemption sub-part, because section 2(22)(A)(ii)(I) expressly excludes redemption for “a digital asset denominated in a fixed amount of monetary value”.
“Reasonable expectation” is judged from the holder’s side. A peg in the name, a chart on the website, a market-making commitment: any of these can create the expectation without a promise in the terms, and the definition catches it.
Section 2(22)(B) removes from the definition a digital asset that is a national currency, a deposit, or a security. Each does different work.
| Exclusion | What it removes | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| (i) National currency | A digital asset that is itself a Federal Reserve note, money at a Federal Reserve Bank, foreign central bank money, or money issued by an intergovernmental organisation | A central bank digital currency is not a payment stablecoin, whatever it is called |
| (ii) Deposit | A deposit as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, including a deposit recorded using distributed ledger technology | A bank’s tokenised deposit is a deposit, is insured as one, and is issued under existing authority, not under section 5 |
| (iii) Security | A security under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment Company Act of 1940 | A token that is a security is regulated as one; but a bond, note or investment contract issued by a permitted issuer is not a security solely because it also meets limb (A) |
The deposit exclusion is the one that decides most bank strategies, and the Act reinforces it from the other direction. Section 16(a)(1) preserves a depository institution’s authority to accept deposits and issue digital assets that represent them. So a bank that wants a dollar token for its own depositors can issue a tokenised deposit under authority it already has. A bank that wants a token that circulates to people who are not its depositors, redeemable at par by anyone, is describing a payment stablecoin and must issue it through a subsidiary approved under section 5.
Section 3(a) applies: from the effective date, only a permitted payment stablecoin issuer may issue it in the United States. The whole of section 4 applies to that issuer: reserves at least 1 to 1, a public redemption policy, the monthly report and certification, the six Bank Secrecy Act elements, the lawful-order capability, the activity limits, and the prohibition on paying holders interest or yield.
Section 17 then does something for the token itself. It amends the Investment Advisers Act, the Investment Company Act, the Securities Act, the Securities Exchange Act, the Securities Investor Protection Act and the Commodity Exchange Act so that a payment stablecoin issued by a permitted issuer is not a security under the first five and not a commodity under the sixth, and a permitted issuer is not an investment company. That is the legal certainty the market wanted, and it attaches only to a payment stablecoin issued by a permitted issuer. A token that meets the definition but is issued by someone else gets none of it.
Section 3(g) sets out the consequences, and they reach the holders rather than only the issuer. Such a stablecoin shall not be treated as cash or a cash equivalent for accounting purposes; shall not be eligible as cash or cash-equivalent margin and collateral for futures commission merchants, derivatives clearing organisations, broker-dealers, registered clearing agencies and swap dealers; and shall not be acceptable as a settlement asset for wholesale payments between banking organisations or by a payment infrastructure.
That is why the definition matters to a treasurer who never issues anything. A corporate holding a stablecoin as a cash equivalent on its balance sheet needs the issuer to be permitted. A clearing member posting stablecoin margin needs the same. From 18 July 2028, section 3(b)(1) adds that a digital asset service provider may not offer or sell a payment stablecoin to a person in the United States unless a permitted issuer issued it, so the secondary market narrows to permitted tokens as well.
The Act uses other terms nearby, and each is a different thing.
Section 4(e)(3)(A) makes it unlawful to market a product in the United States as a payment stablecoin unless the product is issued pursuant to the Act, and Treasury may fine a knowing and wilful violation up to $500,000 per violation, with overlapping acts counted once. Section 4(a)(9) adds, for the permitted issuer, that the name may not contain terms relating to the United States Government and the marketing may not suggest legal tender or Government backing, while “USD” and similar currency abbreviations are expressly fine.
So the word is not free. A tokenised deposit is not marketed as a payment stablecoin, because it is not one. A pre-approval test token is not marketed as one either. A foreign issuer’s token that is not within the section 18 exception is not marketed as one in the United States. The determination of what a token is comes first, and the marketing follows it.
No. Section 2(22)(B)(ii) excludes a deposit, including a deposit recorded using distributed ledger technology, and section 16(a)(1) preserves the bank’s authority to issue one. It is a deposit, insured as a deposit, and outside sections 3 to 5.
Not if a permitted issuer issued it. Section 17 amends the securities statutes to say so expressly. A token that meets the definition but is issued by someone else has no such protection, and a token that is a security to begin with is excluded from the definition by section 2(22)(B)(iii).
The definition refers to a fixed amount of monetary value, and section 2(17) defines monetary value as a national currency or a deposit denominated in one. A euro-pegged token can meet the definition; the Act’s issuance prohibition and its civil penalty for unlicensed issuance in section 6(b)(5)(A) are framed around issuance in the United States and dollar-denominated stablecoins respectively, so the analysis is one for counsel.
The issuer, in the first instance, on the facts of its terms, marketing and contract, and it should write the determination down with reasons. The regulator, Treasury and ultimately a court decide whether the issuer was right.
The determination is the first document in any GENIUS Act program, because everything else depends on the answer. Our GENIUS Act Toolkit opens with a Payment Stablecoin Classification Determination that applies the two limbs and three exclusions asset by asset, then an issuer pathway determination that fixes the regulator, before any of the 126 templates that follow. The section 4 requirements are what follow a positive answer.
September 13, 2026
September 13, 2026
September 13, 2026
September 13, 2026
September 13, 2026