Skip navigation

Insight

The special case of Puerto Rico stablecoin issuers

Under the GENIUS Act, is a Puerto Rico-based stablecoin issuer a U.S. issuer or a foreign issuer? It seems like it could be either -- or even both.

Reading the GENIUS Act as a banking lawyer, one thing leaps out: this is a banking law. The Act borrows heavily from existing banking statutes. In the process, it imports many features that make bank reg fun for me, but bewildering to outsiders.

Among the many examples is the treatment of Puerto Rico-based issuers. In this respect, the GENIUS Act mirrors a peculiarity of U.S. law as it applies to banks:

➡️ Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), “State” includes the several States, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory. A Puerto Rico‑chartered bank is therefore a “State bank” for FDIC purposes.
➡️ But under the International Banking Act of 1978 (IBA), a “foreign bank” includes a company organized under the laws of a foreign country or a U.S. territory such as Puerto Rico. That means a Puerto Rico‑chartered bank is also a “foreign bank” for IBA purposes.

The dual treatment has real consequences: A Puerto Rico-based bank can operate in the continental U.S. through both FDIC-insured domestic branches and an uninsured foreign bank branch. The foreign bank branch can be an OCC-regulated federal branch that provides most of the benefits of national bank preemption otherwise unavailable to this "state" chartered bank.

The GENIUS Act imports this quirk of US banking law into the world of stablecoin issuers. It includes territories in both the definition of “state” and “foreign stablecoin issuer.”

How much this matters depends on what Puerto Rico and the U.S. Treasury do next. Given its history of crypto-friendliness, it seems plausible that Puerto Rico could establish its own stablecoin framework. If it does, will the Puerto Rico regulator seek federal certification of its framework under the state certification process? Or recognition as a comparable foreign regulatory regime? Is there any reason it can’t do both?

Related

BJ Sanford

Agency Interpretations & Guidance Rulemaking & Administrative Procedure Bank Service Providers Challenger Banks Foreign Banking Organizations National Banks Digital Asset Firms Payment Processors ILCs Capital, Liquidity & Prudential Standards Affiliate Transactions Bank Powers & Permissible Activities Branching & Interstate Banking Bank Charters De Novo Banks Licensing Applications & Filings Licensing Decisions & Interpretations Holding Companies Insider Lending Mergers, Acquisitions & Change in Control Deposit & Payment Accounts Electronic Fund Transfers & Consumer Payments UDAAP Fiduciary Activities BSA/AML Fraud & Scams SAR Resolution Planning Edge & Agreement Corporations and Export Trading Foreign Banking Organizations & International Operations Federal Reserve Banks & Services Reserve Requirements Brokered Deposits Deposit Products & Accounts Check Collection & Funds Availability Debit Cards & Interchange Money Transmission & Remittances Wire Transfers & Instant Payments Third-Party Risk Management Investment Securities Regulatory Reporting & Call Reports Artificial Intelligence Bank-Fintech Partnerships Digital Assets & Cryptocurrency Digital Banking & Mobile Services Electronic Signatures & Records Financial Technology Open Banking & Consumer Data Rights Responsible Innovation Administrative Procedure Act Congressional Review Act EGRPRA EO 12866 EO 13132 EO 14192 EO 14294 PRA RFA BHCA BMA BSA BSCA Basel III CBCA Durbin Amendment EFTA ESIGN Regulation CC FDIA Section 24 12 CFR 328 FDICIA-Part 363 12 CFR 337.6 - 337.7 Regulation O Regulation D FRA Sections 23A and 23B 12 CFR 9 GENIUS Act GLBA-Privacy GLBA 501b-Security SSG IBA Regulation F NBA Regulation J Regulation DD Tying Arrangements UDAAP/UDAP