Stablecoin Banking: The Regulatory Puzzle Intensifies in 2026

Stablecoin Banking: The Regulatory Puzzle Intensifies in 2026

The convergence of stablecoins and traditional banking is creating a regulatory puzzle that frameworks like MiCA¹ and the GENIUS Act² only partially solve. The core question remains: how do you regulate a hybrid model that is neither a pure bank nor a pure crypto-asset service provider?

This isn't theoretical. Dutch neobank bunq filed for a US banking license with the OCC this week³, signaling crypto-native firms' push into mainstream banking.

🧩 THE CATEGORIZATION MAZE

The fundamental challenge is categorization. Is a stablecoin neobank a credit institution under CRD IV⁴, an e-money institution under the E-Money Directive⁵ issuing e-money tokens under MiCA¹, or a crypto-asset service provider under MiCA¹ providing banking-like services? Each path has vastly different implications for authorization, capital requirements, and consumer protection.

🏦 THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE GAP

A critical issue is the deposit insurance gap. If a stablecoin neobank holds customer funds in stablecoins rather than traditional deposits, are those funds protected by deposit insurance schemes like the FDIC or DGSD⁶? Likely not. Stablecoins in custody may not constitute "deposits" under current definitions, leaving customers with claims on safeguarded assets but no guarantee of recovery.

This concern is so significant that the GENIUS Act² prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest—a safeguard to prevent deposits from migrating out of traditional banks.

⚖️ OPERATIONAL & AML COMPLEXITY

Operational risks are substantial. DORA⁷ provides a framework for operational resilience, but it was designed for traditional finance and may not adequately address crypto-specific risks like smart contract vulnerabilities, blockchain congestion, or private key management failures. Applying AML/CFT requirements from the Fifth AML Directive⁸ to these hybrid models creates significant compliance complexity.

❓ THE CRITICAL QUESTION FOR 2026

With Visa now settling billions in USDC⁹ and the Federal Reserve scrutinizing non-bank payment account access¹⁰, pressure for regulatory clarity is immense. 2026 is shaping up to be the year regulators must provide clear answers on supervising these innovative but risky hybrid models.

References

¹ Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA) ² GENIUS Act (2025) ³ bunq OCC Application (Jan 2026) ⁴ Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD IV) ⁵ Directive 2009/110/EC (E-Money Directive) ⁶ Directive 2014/49/EU (DGSD) ⁷ Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA) ⁸ Directive (EU) 2015/849 (Fifth AML Directive) ⁹ Visa USDC Settlement (Dec 2025) ¹⁰ Federal Reserve Payment Accounts Proposal