The comment window closes at midnight, and every US-licensed stablecoin issuer is now on the clock

By the time the East Coast lunch hour rolls around today, Tuesday June 9, 2026, the public comment docket for the joint FinCEN and OFAC proposed rule on Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers will be hours from snapping shut. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2026, the standard 60-day comment window began ticking the same day, and at 11:59 PM tonight the regulators stop taking input and start drafting the final rule. What lands on the books, probably before the end of Q4 2026, will reshape how dollar-denominated stablecoins move on and off the chain inside US jurisdiction, and because the US dollar is still the unit of account for roughly ninety-seven percent of stablecoin supply globally, what FinCEN writes here echoes everywhere else.

The stakes are not abstract. The rule names a specific class of entity, the Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuer or PPSI, a status created by the GENIUS Act last year, and it imposes on that class the full Bank Secrecy Act compliance stack that until now applied to banks, money services businesses, and broker-dealers but not to stablecoin issuers as a category. Circle, which issues USDC, and Paxos, which issues PYUSD and several smaller dollar tokens, are the two obvious names in scope today, and any future federally licensed issuer steps onto the same conveyor belt the moment it receives PPSI designation.

What the GENIUS Act actually does

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, signed into law in 2025, did two things at once. It created a federal licensing path for payment stablecoin issuers, which until then had operated under a patchwork of state money transmitter licenses and the New York BitLicense, and it told FinCEN and OFAC to write implementing rules governing how those federally licensed issuers manage anti-money-laundering risk and sanctions exposure. The April 10 NPRM is the first half of that mandate delivered, and as the Holland & Knight summary put it on April 14, the proposal treats PPSIs functionally as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act, with all of the program-level obligations that label carries.

PPSI is a status, not a product. Once Circle holds the designation, every USDC token it issues falls under the rule. The same logic applies to PYUSD through Paxos. USDT, issued by Tether Limited out of the British Virgin Islands and El Salvador, is structurally outside US jurisdiction and therefore outside the rule, but the practical pressure on Tether is real because nearly every USDT on-ramp inside the United States runs through a US bank or a US-chartered money services business, and those institutions read FinCEN guidance as if it bound them too.

The five things FinCEN and OFAC are demanding

The legal-industry summaries from Covington, DLA Piper, and Holland & Knight all converge on the same five-obligation skeleton, which mirrors the structure of the NPRM itself:

A risk-based AML program with a designated compliance officer, documented internal controls, independent testing, and an enterprise risk assessment that gets refreshed on a defined cadence

A sanctions compliance program built to OFAC's recently formalized expectations, including screening of counterparties and, critically, blockchain-address screening against the SDN list

Suspicious Activity Report filing on the standard FinCEN SAR cycle, with the thirty-day clock running from the moment the issuer identifies the triggering activity

A Customer Identification Program covering every direct customer of the issuer, meaning the institutional mint and redemption counterparties, with documented identity verification and beneficial ownership collection

Recordkeeping and Travel Rule compliance for transfers above the threshold, which the NPRM proposes harmonizing at the long-anticipated $3,000 figure rather than the legacy $10,000 line

The Covington note, citing the NPRM's preamble, observed that the proposal treats the issuer as having a direct customer relationship only with the parties that mint and redeem against it, which is a narrower customer perimeter than some commenters had feared, but the proposal pairs that narrower perimeter with a substantially expanded transaction-monitoring obligation that reaches across the secondary market.

What it means for self-custody and no-KYC

Here is where the rule lands with weight for anyone who values transactional privacy. The NPRM does not deputize self-hosted wallet users, it does not require them to identify themselves to Circle or Paxos, and it does not impose any new direct obligation on the holder of a hardware wallet. What it does is require the PPSI, when it is asked to mint new tokens to a self-hosted address or redeem tokens coming in from one, to apply enhanced due diligence to that interaction, which in practice means address screening, source-of-funds inquiry above defined thresholds, and the right to refuse the mint or redemption if the diligence does not clear.

The friction point is therefore the on-ramp and the off-ramp, not the wallet itself. USDC and PYUSD will remain technically usable in self-custody, the smart contracts do not change, but getting fresh USDC into a self-hosted wallet without passing through an identity check at the issuer or at a regulated intermediary will become materially harder once the final rule is in effect. The DLA Piper client alert framed the consequence cleanly when it noted that the rule reorients the regulatory perimeter from the wallet to the issuer, which is a polite way of saying that the on-ramp is now where the friction lives.

The mid-2026 inflection point

This is not a US story in isolation. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets framework reaches its final implementation milestone for crypto-asset service providers on July 1, 2026, exactly twenty-two days after today's US comment window closes, and the FATF Travel Rule rollout continues to pull non-Western jurisdictions into the same compliance perimeter on a roughly parallel timetable. Layered on top of that calendar is the political environment created by the DOJ's $15 billion Bitcoin seizure from Chen Zhi in October 2025 and the $225 million USSS seizure from earlier in the same cycle, the largest in that agency's history, both of which gave the Treasury a fresh enforcement narrative to point at when the GENIUS Act rulemaking was being staffed out. According to a PYMNTS report from late April, senior Treasury officials have begun talking openly about programmable enforcement as the medium-term direction, which is the policy vocabulary worth tracking.

The result is that mid-2026 is the inflection point everyone in the stablecoin business has been pricing in for two years. The comment letters Circle and Paxos have filed, and the comment letters the Blockchain Association and the DeFi Education Fund have filed alongside them, will land in a FinCEN that already has its policy posture set.

What this changes for the Directory

We are re-grading every listing that touches stablecoin liquidity. Effective with today's editorial cycle, every service in the directory will carry a new "stablecoin liquidity origin" tag, distinguishing PPSI-routed liquidity from non-PPSI liquidity. Services whose primary dollar liquidity routes through USDC or PYUSD will be flagged for review and, once the final rule is published, downgraded on the no-KYC axis to reflect the on-ramp friction the rule creates. Services that maintain meaningful non-PPSI stablecoin liquidity, whether that means USDT pairs sourced through non-US venues, decentralized dollar alternatives such as DAI and its descendants, or atomic-swap routes that bypass centralized issuers entirely, will see their no-KYC grade preserved or elevated. The methodology page will be updated by the end of the week to document the new tag, and the [stablecoin swap services](/services?tag=stablecoin) and [no-KYC exchanges](/services?tag=exchange) category pages will reflect the regrading as it rolls out listing by listing.

The comment window closes tonight. The rule itself lands later this year. The Directory will be ready.

Sources

Federal Register, PPSI AML/CFT and Sanctions Compliance Proposed Rule (April 10, 2026)

FinCEN, NPRM PDF (April 2026)

Covington, Five Things to Know (April 2026)

DLA Piper, Treasury Proposes Stablecoin AML Rules (April 2026)

Holland & Knight, FinCEN-OFAC Stablecoin Rules (April 2026)

PYMNTS, Treasury and Programmable Financial Enforcement (April 2026)

Edit log

2026-04-11 : First read of the Federal Register notice the day after publication, locked in the April 10 publication date and counted out the 60-day comment window to land on June 9 as the deadline.

2026-04-20 : Pulled the Covington, DLA Piper, and Holland & Knight summaries side by side, normalized the obligations list against the actual NPRM PDF, and confirmed that all three legal-industry treatments converge on the same five-obligation skeleton used in section three.

2026-05-08 : Tracked submitted public comments by major issuers, Circle and Paxos, plus the Blockchain Association and the DeFi Education Fund, through the regulations.gov filing window, noted that none of the early filings moved the conversation off the five-obligation frame.

2026-05-28 : Drafted the inflection-point section linking the EU MiCA July 1 implementation milestone to today's US deadline, cross-checked the FATF Travel Rule rollout calendar, and added the Chen Zhi $15B and USSS $225M enforcement-context references.

2026-06-08 : Final pass the night before publication, removed em-dashes throughout, tightened the cadence of the self-custody section, added internal links to the stablecoin-tagged service entries and the exchanges category page, and locked the new "stablecoin liquidity origin" tag commitment into the closing section.