A crypto payment platform is preparing to expand into the U.S. market. The team has already completed FinCEN MSB registration, built a stablecoin wallet, payment collection interface and cross-border settlement system, and has also begun to connect U.S. dollar deposit and withdrawal services.
Under the original plan, the next step was mainly to confirm which states require a Money Transmitter License (MTL), and then to look for banking and payment partners.
However, after the GENIUS Act was introduced, the team began to encounter new questions: if the platform uses USDC to collect payments, does it need to apply for an additional stablecoin license? If it wants to issue its own U.S. dollar stablecoin, can the existing MSB registration continue to be used? If it merely transfers third-party stablecoins on behalf of customers, will it also fall under the new law's regulation?
Behind these questions, two different regulatory logics are in fact involved.
On July 18, 2025, the U.S. Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (the GENIUS Act) was formally signed into law, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Entering 2026, the OCC, FinCEN, the Federal Reserve and other agencies have successively advanced specific implementing rules, and the U.S. stablecoin market has thereby entered a new stage of regulatory adjustment.
The GENIUS Act does not render U.S. MSB registration meaningless, nor does it require all payment platforms that use stablecoins to apply for a stablecoin issuance license. What it truly changes is that issuing U.S. dollar payment stablecoins and using stablecoins to provide payment services must be assessed separately for regulatory status.
For projects that merely use third-party stablecoins to carry out exchange, transfer and cross-border payment, MSB and related state-level licenses may still be an important compliance foundation; but if a project intends to issue on its own a payment stablecoin that meets the definition under the GENIUS Act, MSB registration alone clearly cannot satisfy the new issuance regulatory requirements.
01 Why can U.S. stablecoin regulation no longer be discussed only in terms of MSB?
In the past, when many crypto payment projects discussed U.S. compliance, the first thing they thought of was MSB.
The reason is simple. Under FinCEN's regulatory interpretation regarding convertible virtual currency (CVC), if an enterprise, as a business operator, receives and transmits convertible virtual currency, or carries out related exchange activities, it may constitute a money transmitter, where the applicable conditions are met and no exemption applies, and bear the corresponding Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) obligations.
Therefore, for wallets, stablecoin exchange, cross-border transfers and related payment projects, FinCEN MSB registration has often become an important element in U.S. compliance analysis.
But there has always been an issue here that is easily misunderstood.
MSB registration is not a business license that covers all financial activities across the United States.
FinCEN's MSB registration primarily corresponds to anti-money laundering regulatory requirements at the federal level. Whether a specific business also needs to obtain a state-level Money Transmitter License should be further determined in accordance with the laws of each state and the business model.
In other words, even without the GENIUS Act, a project should not be simply understood as "once MSB registration is completed, all crypto payment business can be conducted in the United States."
After the GENIUS Act was introduced, this hierarchical relationship has become more evident.
The United States now needs to distinguish at least three questions: who is issuing payment stablecoins, who is providing fund or digital asset transfer services to customers, and which entities need to satisfy federal and state-level financial regulatory requirements.
Although issuance, exchange and transfer may appear in the same App, they do not necessarily constitute the same type of financial activity.
02 What the GENIUS Act actually regulates is the issuance responsibility for stablecoins
To understand the new law, it is first necessary to distinguish between "issuing stablecoins" and "using stablecoins."
Under the GENIUS Act, payment stablecoins mainly refer to digital assets designed for payment or settlement, for which the issuer bears the obligation to exchange, redeem or repurchase at a fixed monetary value, while maintaining the corresponding expectation of stable value. Whether a specific token falls within this legal definition still needs to be determined in light of the token's actual rights and structure.
If a company intends to issue on its own a U.S. dollar-pegged stablecoin, collect U.S. dollars from users and mint tokens, and promise that holders can redeem at a fixed value, then the regulatory focus is no longer merely ordinary Money Transmission.
Regulators also need to determine:
Whether the issuer has obtained appropriate authorization? Whether the stablecoins in circulation are fully reserved? How can holders redeem? Who custodies the reserve assets? If liquidity problems arise or the issuer becomes insolvent, how are users' rights protected?
The GENIUS Act thereby establishes the regulatory status of the Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer.
Under the law, eligible issuing entities may include approved subsidiaries of depository institutions, federally qualified payment stablecoin issuers, and state-qualified payment stablecoin issuers that meet the relevant requirements. The approval and supervisory arrangements for the different pathways are not entirely identical, nor is it simply a matter of applying for a uniformly named "GENIUS license."
At the same time, the law requires permitted issuers to maintain backing by qualifying reserve assets of at least 1:1 and to assume reserve disclosure, redemption, risk management and other regulatory obligations. The specific detailed rules still need to be determined in light of federal and state regulatory rules.
This is clearly different from the problem that traditional MSB registration addresses.
MSB registration primarily helps regulators identify and supervise the relevant money services operators, whereas payment stablecoin issuance regulation must also address the redemption liability and reserve safety behind the token.
If a project has only completed MSB registration but intends to directly issue its own U.S. dollar payment stablecoin to users, then there is a fundamental regulatory gap between the two.
03 By 2026, at what stage is implementation of the new law?
This point is very important, because although the GENIUS Act has become law, not all proposed rules have become fully effective formal requirements.
Under Section 20 of the GENIUS Act, the effective date of the main provisions of the law is the earlier of two dates: 18 months after signature on July 18, 2025, or 120 days after the primary federal payment stablecoin regulator issues final implementing rules.
Therefore, January 18, 2027 is currently the statutory time point requiring close attention; if the relevant final rules trigger an earlier effective arrangement, the assessment will need to be adjusted accordingly.
In 2026, U.S. regulators are intensively advancing implementing rules.
In February, the OCC proposed draft regulatory rules on stablecoin issuance and related activities, covering issuance eligibility, reserve assets, redemption, risk management, auditing, reporting and custody, among other matters.
In April, FinCEN and OFAC proposed draft anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance rules for permitted payment stablecoin issuers.
In June, FinCEN, together with the OCC, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the NCUA, jointly proposed draft rules relating to Customer Identification Programs (CIP), while the OCC proposed an AML/CFT supervisory framework for issuers.
In September, the Federal Reserve also published draft implementing rules for payment stablecoin issuers within its supervisory scope.
These developments indicate that the United States is bringing the reserves, redemption, customer identification and financial crime risks of payment stablecoin issuers within a clearer regulatory framework.
However, as of October 2026, not all of the provisions in the above consultation drafts can be treated directly as requirements that have been finalized and fully applied.
For project parties, the most important task now is not to declare in advance that they "already comply with all the new GENIUS rules," but to complete business classification and a compliance gap analysis in advance in accordance with the legal framework and the published regulatory direction.
04 Even when all are providing USDC payments, why may different projects require completely different licenses?
For enterprises genuinely engaged in payments, this may be the question most worth attention.
Assume that three companies all publicly advertise that they provide "US dollar stablecoin payments," but their actual business models are completely different.
The first company: uses third-party stablecoins to provide collection and cross-border settlement.
It does not issue its own stablecoin; instead, it receives USDC already held by customers, completes transfers or exchanges according to customer instructions, and pays fiat currency to end merchants through licensed institutions.
In this case, the project first needs to analyze whether money transmission, virtual currency exchange, control of customer assets and related payment services trigger FinCEN MSB, state-level MTL or other licensing requirements.
Because stablecoins are issued by third parties, a project does not automatically become the issuer of a stablecoin merely because it uses USDC.
However, the project still needs to verify the stablecoin issuer, the compliance status of the relevant assets, and whether the cooperating institutions can provide the corresponding services.
The second company: issuing its own U.S. dollar stablecoin and then using it in a payment network.
This company not only builds the wallet and payment system, but also is responsible for minting, issuing and redeeming the tokens, and bears an obligation to holders to redeem them at a fixed value.
In this structure, the regulation of payment stablecoin issuance under the GENIUS Act becomes the core issue.
Even if an enterprise has previously completed MSB registration, or has even obtained a Money Transmission license in some states, those statuses alone do not establish that it is qualified to issue payment stablecoins that meet the definition under the GENIUS Act.
The third company: providing only payment software and technical interfaces.
For example, an enterprise develops a wallet front end or collection software, but does not control customer assets, does not act as a counterparty, does not execute funds transmission on behalf of customers, and does not bear responsibility for token issuance or redemption.
Where the applicable conditions are met, pure technical services may not constitute a business requiring a Money Transmitter license.
However, an enterprise still needs to make a judgment based on the actual control of assets, transaction instructions and funds flows, and cannot simply conclude that no financial regulatory obligations exist merely because the contract states "Technology Provider."
Therefore, one cannot look only at whether all three companies use USDC.
What truly changes the regulatory conclusion is who issues, who controls assets, who transmits value, and who bears financial service responsibility to customers.
05 The GENIUS Act does not only affect issuers; it will also change payment platforms' choice of currency
There is another change here that is easily overlooked.
Although the regulatory core of the GENIUS Act is the issuer, it also imposes restrictions on digital asset service providers offering or selling payment stablecoins to U.S. customers.
Under Section 3 of the Act, in principle, from July 18, 2028, relevant digital asset service providers may not offer or sell payment stablecoins that do not meet the prescribed issuance conditions to persons within the United States, unless the corresponding exception applies.
For payment stablecoins issued outside the United States, the Act also sets out dedicated arrangements, including the issuer's technical capability to comply with orders such as lawful freeze orders, as well as a comparability-of-foreign-regulation and registration mechanism applicable under specified conditions.
This means that a project cannot consider only:
"Can our MSB cover stablecoin transfers?"
It must further consider:
"Can the issuer of the U.S. dollar stablecoin we choose satisfy U.S. market access requirements on a long-term basis?"
Especially for payment platforms that rely on stablecoins issued outside the United States, this question will directly affect the transaction currency, liquidity arrangements, partner institutions and the future scope of services to U.S. customers.
But here too, attention must be paid to the temporal boundaries.
The fact that the GENIUS Act has been signed does not by itself mean that a certain stablecoin widely circulating in the market has already been comprehensively banned in the United States, nor can it be concluded solely from an issuer's place of registration that the issuer necessarily does or does not comply with all regulatory requirements.
The law establishes a set of issuer and market-access rules that must be implemented on an ongoing basis; the specific currency should still be verified separately in light of the applicable point in time, the issuing entity and the regulatory status.
For crypto payment projects, this means that future currency due diligence cannot focus only on market capitalization, liquidity and on-chain fees; it must also add dimensions such as the issuer's regulatory status, reserve and redemption arrangements, freeze capabilities and compliance risks.
06 For USD stablecoin payments, are MSB and MTL still required?
This requires a fresh assessment, but the answer cannot simply be "both are required" or "neither is required."
The enactment of the GENIUS Act did not directly eliminate FinCEN's existing Money Services Business regulatory framework, nor did it automatically classify all stablecoin payment activities as issuer licensing.
For enterprises that themselves constitute Money Transmission or related convertible virtual currency services, the existing BSA obligations and state-level Money Transmission laws remain practically relevant.
For a specific project, however, the regulatory scope also depends on the method of funds transmission, the customer relationship, the jurisdictions of operation, whether customer assets are controlled, and whether any applicable exemption exists.
For example, a platform that uses third-party stablecoins to transfer value to other persons on behalf of U.S. customers must still assess the applicable Money Transmission regulation; by contrast, an enterprise that merely uses stablecoins it holds itself to pay its own procurement obligations does not automatically become an MSB merely because it makes on-chain payments.
This is also why U.S. stablecoin payments cannot simply be mapped onto a single licensing roadmap.
For projects planning to operate over the long term, a more reasonable approach is to break the business down into several layers:
This table is for business classification only and does not mean that each activity necessarily corresponds to a separate license. The same entity may hold multiple qualifications, and certain functions may lawfully be provided by licensed partners.
What truly needs to be avoided are two extremes:
First, the view that “now that the GENIUS Act has arrived, every stablecoin payment company must apply for an issuance license.”
Second, the view that “we have MSB registration, so the GENIUS Act has no impact on us at all.”
Issuance regulation and payment regulation may apply to different entities, but the same stablecoin payment business chain still requires both to be considered at the same time.
07 How should a mature U.S. dollar stablecoin payment platform design its licensed structure?
Assume a company wishes to provide stablecoin collection and fiat settlement services to U.S. merchants, but has no plan in the short term to issue its own stablecoin.
Rather than applying directly for issuer status, what is more worthwhile is to first map out the entire funds chain.
What stablecoin do customers use to pay? Which institution issues the token? Do user assets enter wallets controlled by the platform or by a cooperating institution? Who is responsible for exchange? Who receives fiat currency? Who settles U.S. dollars to merchants? With which entities do customers establish contractual relationships?
If the company itself does not issue stablecoins, it may prioritize assessing the use of third-party stablecoins that meet applicable regulatory requirements, with necessary financial services undertaken by counterparties with the corresponding qualifications.
However, licensed cooperation is not simply borrowing a license.
If a project itself controls customer assets, executes fund transfers, or undertakes actual payment business, it cannot automatically be deemed to have no regulatory obligations of its own even if it connects to licensed cooperating institutions at the underlying level.
For companies preparing to issue stablecoins themselves in the future, it will be necessary, in addition to their existing payment business, to separately establish a complete structure for issuance, reserves, redemption, governance and regulatory reporting.
Particular attention should be paid to the fact that whether an issuer possesses specific qualifications and whether its affiliates can carry out custody, trading, payment and other financial businesses are different regulatory determinations.
Therefore, a truly mature USD stablecoin payment group may need to place the stablecoin issuer, the wallet or payment operating entity, and the banking and settlement counterparties in their proper respective positions.
A project does not necessarily need to hold all licenses itself, but it must be clear as to who lawfully provides each regulated service.
08 Which projects should re-examine their U.S. compliance pathway now?
The first category consists of projects that have completed FinCEN MSB registration and are expanding into U.S. stablecoin payments, merchant settlement, or cross-border remittance business. Such enterprises need to reconfirm the specific business activities covered by their MSB registration, the scope of state-level licensing coverage, and whether the actual flow of funds is consistent with existing regulatory arrangements.
The second category consists of platforms preparing to issue their own USD stablecoins. For these teams, GENIUS Act issuer eligibility, reserves, redemption, and related regulatory requirements should be the starting point for business design, rather than being reconsidered only after the product has already launched.
The third category consists of enterprises that serve U.S. customers through stablecoins issued offshore. As the restrictions and implementing rules under the GENIUS Act are gradually implemented, issuer admission, stablecoin listing, redemption support, and cross-border compliance arrangements all need to be assessed in advance.
The fourth category consists of crypto payment projects that wish to enter the U.S. market by using licensed partner institutions. Such teams need to clarify whether the partner holds MSB registration, a state-level MTL, issuer eligibility, or another regulatory status, so as to avoid treating one type of qualification as a comprehensive license covering the entire payment chain.
For these enterprises, what is most needed now is not simply obtaining one more license, but reconfirming whether the existing structure can support future business.
09 How do we typically support such projects?
For teams currently conducting USD stablecoin payments in the United States, the first step is typically to clarify which role the project actually assumes in the entire business chain—whether as issuer, wallet operator, money transmission service provider, payment service provider, or pure technology provider.
On that basis, and in light of the GENIUS Act, FinCEN rules, and relevant state-level Money Transmission laws, we can prepare documents such as the Compliance Diagnostic Opinion on U.S. Stablecoin Payment Business Models and the Analysis of the Applicability of the GENIUS Act and MSB/MTL, so as to first clarify whether the existing business needs adjustment and which regulatory requirements future new products may trigger.
If a project is preparing to issue its own USD stablecoin, it will be necessary to further assess issuer eligibility, the regulatory pathway, reserve and redemption mechanisms, and banking and reserve custody arrangements, and to prepare a corresponding regulatory gap analysis and implementation roadmap.
For enterprises that use third-party stablecoins to conduct collection, exchange and cross-border settlement, it is necessary to focus on mapping on-chain and off-chain fund flows, customer asset control, the scope of state-level licensing and licensed cooperation structures, and to clarify which entity provides services at each stage, as well as how to implement AML/KYC/KYT and sanctions compliance requirements.
Once the implementation stage is reached, it is also necessary, in light of the specific due diligence requirements of banks and payment partners, to conduct qualification verification of stablecoin issuers, custody and liquidity service providers, payment channels and other cooperating institutions, and to improve contractual liability and ongoing compliance mechanisms.
Conclusion: The GENIUS Act has not replaced the MSB regime; rather, it requires stablecoin business to be examined on a layered basis
Returning to the title: After the GENIUS Act, is a US MSB still sufficient for USD stablecoin payments?
If a project merely relies on third-party stablecoins to provide exchange, money transmission or other payment services, the MSB regime may still be part of its compliance system, but it generally cannot rely solely on FinCEN registration to establish nationwide operating authority.
If a project intends to issue its own USD payment stablecoin, MSB registration alone is clearly insufficient, and it must further assess issuer eligibility and the relevant regulatory requirements under the GENIUS Act.
And if a project uses an offshore-issued stablecoin to serve US customers, it cannot merely check its own payment license; it also needs to pay attention to the market access of the stablecoin issuer and future regulatory restrictions.
US stablecoin regulation is moving beyond the past discussion centered on virtual currency exchange and money transmission, and is further extending to token issuers, reserves, redemption and risks to the financial system.
For crypto payment enterprises genuinely preparing for long-term operations, this is not simply an additional license to apply for.
The more important change is this:
Issuing stablecoins, transmitting stablecoins and using stablecoins to complete payments can no longer be treated as the same business.
Only by placing these three matters separately within the correct regulatory frameworks can USD stablecoin payments truly form a long-term and stable business structure.
Next article | Global Crypto Payment Compliance Map · Advanced Edition ⑭
VARA Is Not a Wildcard: Why Dubai Crypto Payments Still Require Central Bank Scrutiny
The next article will further discuss the boundary between virtual asset service regulation and payment token regulation in the UAE, and what the Dubai VARA and the UAE Central Bank are respectively responsible for.
