U.S. Banks Seek 60-Day Delay on Stablecoin Rules as GENIUS Act Fight Heats Up

U.S. banking groups are pushing federal regulators for more time to comment on stablecoin regulation under the GENIUS Act, arguing the rules are too interconnected to rush without creating a mess.

• Banking groups want a 60-day extension for comment periods
• The OCC stablecoin framework is seen as the key starting point
• Regulators at Treasury, FDIC, OFAC, and FinCEN need to stay aligned
• The real fight is over who gets to shape the payment infrastructure behind digital money

The request came in a letter to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the FDIC, backed by major banking trade groups including the American Bankers Association and the Bank Policy Institute. Their ask is straightforward: give the public at least 60 more days to review and respond to proposed stablecoin rules, but only after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finishes its own framework.

For readers not steeped in regulator-speak, a comment period is the window where banks, companies, advocacy groups, and ordinary citizens can submit feedback on proposed rules before they become final. A framework is the rulebook regulators use to enforce the law. And in this case, the rulebook is split across several agencies that all have a hand in digital asset oversight.

That’s why the OCC matters so much. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency oversees national banks, and its stablecoin rule is expected to act as the foundation for related guidance from OFAC, FinCEN, and the FDIC. When one agency sets the tone, the others usually have to build around it. If they don’t, you get conflicting requirements, compliance headaches, and loopholes big enough to drive a Treasury truck through.

The banking groups are not pretending this is a minor paperwork tweak. They describe the rulemaking effort as “significant and highly complex” and say they need more time to understand how the various pieces interact. That includes making sure the agencies aren’t stepping on each other’s toes while trying to build a coherent system for stablecoin regulation.

“Without sufficient time, they warn, the effectiveness and clarity of the final regulations could be compromised.”

That warning is not just standard lobbyist theater. Coordinating Treasury, the FDIC, OFAC, and FinCEN on stablecoins is genuinely complicated. These agencies do different jobs: Treasury sets broad policy, the FDIC insures deposits and watches bank risk, OFAC handles sanctions, and FinCEN focuses on anti-money-laundering and financial crime controls. If their rules are out of sync, banks will be forced to guess which master they’re supposed to serve. That’s how you end up with expensive compliance junk and legal uncertainty instead of usable regulation.

At the same time, this is also a power play. Stablecoins are not some side quest in crypto. They are the plumbing behind trading, payments, settlement, DeFi liquidity, and cross-border transfers. In plain English: stablecoins are crypto tokens designed to hold a steady value, usually tied to the U.S. dollar, and they’re often used because they move fast and don’t swing wildly like bitcoin or ether. Whoever writes the rules for them is helping decide how digital dollars move in the U.S. financial system.

That’s exactly why the tug-of-war between banks and the crypto industry keeps heating up. Traditional finance does not want to wake up one day and discover the future of payments was built without it. Crypto, on the other hand, sees a familiar pattern: established institutions asking for “more time” while trying to preserve their place in the system. Both camps are playing defense and offense at the same time. Welcome to Washington, where every noble principle comes with a lobbyist and a footnote.

There’s also a bigger legislative backdrop here. The same bank-versus-crypto tensions are contributing to delays in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, another effort aimed at defining how digital assets should be regulated in the United States. That makes stablecoin policy part of a much larger fight over crypto regulation in the U.S., especially around who gets to set the standards for financial stability, consumer protection, and innovation.

To be fair, banks aren’t wrong to ask for coordination. If regulators rush and produce a half-baked framework, the market gets stuck with contradictions, expensive compliance burdens, and rules that may be impossible to follow in practice. That can favor only the biggest incumbents while squeezing out smaller firms and startups. On the flip side, too much delay gives the impression that “careful review” is just code for stalling long enough to preserve legacy control.

That’s the ugly, honest reality of digital asset oversight: a good framework can help stablecoins become safer and more widely usable for payments and remittances, while a bad one can smother innovation or push activity offshore. Overly loose rules are a bad joke too, because they can invite bad reserve practices, weak consumer protections, and the kind of financial nonsense that gives critics of crypto fresh ammo.

The GENIUS Act is expected to be fully implemented by 2027, which means this regulatory fight is still in the middle innings. Extensions to comment periods are common when rulemaking is complex, and this one certainly qualifies. But the timing also matters because stablecoins are becoming more central to crypto markets and payments infrastructure. The longer the uncertainty lasts, the longer firms, exchanges, and builders have to operate in a cloud of “maybe” instead of clear rules.

That uncertainty can cut both ways. For large banks, more time may help them shape a framework that doesn’t create contradictory obligations or new liabilities. For crypto-native companies, it can look like another round of regulatory drag dressed up as prudence. The truth is less glamorous and more political: this is a fight over the rails of digital money, and every major player wants a hand on the switch.

Stablecoin regulation is moving forward, but the battle over who writes the rules is far from settled. Banks want coordination, regulators want to avoid a legal pile-up, and the crypto sector wants clarity before the old guard gets too comfortable rearranging the chairs.

What are banking groups asking for?
They want a 60-day extension to comment on proposed stablecoin rules under the GENIUS Act, starting after the OCC finalizes its framework.

Why do they want more time?
Because the rules are spread across multiple agencies, and they say more time is needed to understand how the pieces fit together without creating conflicting requirements.

Why is the OCC stablecoin rule important?
It is expected to serve as the baseline for related guidance from OFAC, FinCEN, and the FDIC.

What is the GENIUS Act?
It is U.S. legislation aimed at creating a stablecoin regulatory framework for oversight and compliance.

Why does this matter to crypto users?
Stablecoin rules affect trading, payments, DeFi liquidity, remittances, and the broader use of digital assets in the real economy.

Is this just banks trying to slow things down?
Not entirely. The coordination problem is real, but so is the strategic fight over who controls the future of digital money.

Could this delay stablecoin regulation?
Yes. Longer comment periods and more coordination can slow the process, though they may also produce clearer and more workable rules.

What’s the biggest risk if regulators rush?
Rushed rules could create confusion, conflicting obligations, weaker consumer protection, and compliance systems that are impossible to run cleanly.

Key takeaways:

• Stablecoins are now a major policy battleground. This is no longer niche crypto chatter; it’s a fight over the payment rails of digital finance.
• The OCC is the linchpin. Its framework will influence how Treasury, the FDIC, OFAC, and FinCEN move next.
• Both caution and self-interest are in play. Banks genuinely need coordination, but they also want a seat at the table before the table gets built without them.
• Good rules matter. Clear stablecoin regulation can support innovation, but heavy-handed or contradictory rules can choke growth and push activity elsewhere.