Five Questions Bank Boards Should Ask About Stablecoins
Governance Considerations for Banks Entering the Digital Currency Ecosystem
-
April 21, 2026
-
Executive Overview
Stablecoins, broadly defined as digital tokens designed to maintain a stable value relative to an underlying asset or fiat currency, have rapidly evolved from niche cryptocurrency instruments into an increasingly significant component of the global financial ecosystem. Today, stablecoins in the U.S. and elsewhere are used for payments, trading settlement, cross-border transfers and emerging blockchain-based financial infrastructure.1 The GENIUS Act and most other guidance issued by financial regulators in the U.S. generally focus on stablecoins backed by fiat currency.2
As this market matures, many financial institutions are evaluating whether to participate through stablecoin issuance, custody services, reserve management or partnerships with fintech platforms and blockchain networks. Participation in stablecoin systems may offer benefits such as faster settlement, new revenue opportunities, and expanded digital payment capabilities. However, alongside the opportunities offered by bank participation in stablecoin systems are regulatory, operational and financial risks that extend beyond traditional banking activities.3
Unlike conventional bank products, stablecoins sit at the intersection of banking regulation, payments infrastructure, digital assets and distributed ledger technology. Their hybrid nature raises important questions regarding capital treatment, liquidity management, consumer protection, financial crime risk and operational resilience.
Boards should first determine the institution’s stablecoin strategy and intended role in the value chain, since risk exposures vary significantly by role. Acting as an issuer, distributor, settlement bank, payments orchestrator or network participant offer varying degrees of risk management and compliance requirements.
Given these complexities, board oversight is essential. Directors must ensure that management has conducted a rigorous assessment of the legal, financial and operational implications associated with stablecoin activities. Institutions considering entry into this space should approach stablecoins not simply as a technology initiative, but as a strategic decision that may affect the institution’s balance sheet, regulatory posture, product offering and risk profile.
The following five questions can help guide board discussions and ensure that stablecoin initiatives are evaluated within a robust governance framework.
What Legal Classification Will Regulators Apply to Our Stablecoin?
One of the most fundamental questions surrounding stablecoins is how regulators will ultimately classify these instruments within the existing framework of financial regulation. Significant progress has been made, such as the SEC clarifying that 1:1 USD-backed stablecoins are not securities, however further guidance from the regulators is forthcoming.4
Depending on their structure, stablecoins may resemble several different types of financial liabilities, including bank deposits, stored-value products, payment obligations or trust liabilities where reserve assets are held in fiduciary capacity for token holders. Stablecoins under the GENIUS act are not considered tokenized deposits – meaning they don’t have the same reserve requirements as deposits, nor are they eligible for FDIC insurance.
Each classification carries significantly different regulatory implications. Tokenized deposits may fall directly within traditional bank regulatory frameworks and be subject to requirements related to liquidity coverage, deposit insurance disclosures and supervisory oversight similar to traditional deposit products.
Alternatively, if the stablecoin is structured as stored value or a payment instrument, regulatory oversight may emphasize safeguarding of funds, consumer protection and operational resilience rather than traditional bank capital requirements.
Trust-based structures – often used by digital asset custody institutions – may impose fiduciary obligations and asset segregation requirements that differ from deposit-based banking models.
For bank boards, the key issue is not simply how the product is designed internally, but how regulators will interpret its legal and economic characteristics. Directors should ensure management engages with regulators early in the product design process to align the structure with supervisory expectations.
How Will Redemption Demand Behave During Market Stress?
Liquidity risk is one of the most critical considerations associated with stablecoin issuance.
Traditional banking institutions manage deposit liquidity risk through well-established frameworks such as liquidity coverage ratios, contingency funding plans and stress testing. Stablecoins introduce new dynamics because they operate on blockchain networks that facilitate continuous global trading. Unlike traditional payment rails, stablecoin networks have 24x7x365 liquidity risk across non-business hours and fluctuating global demand cycles, which creates additional monitoring requirements for the financial institution.
Redemption demand can escalate rapidly during periods of market uncertainty. In digital markets, confidence can shift quickly, potentially triggering large-scale redemption requests in short timeframes and creating the possibility of a digital liquidity run.
While not finalized, the board should consider the OCC’s “GENIUS Act Regulations: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” when considering the redemption strategy in stressed scenarios.5
Boards should ensure that management has developed robust liquidity risk management frameworks that address key questions: What level of redemption activity could occur during market stress? How quickly could reserve assets be liquidated without disrupting markets? What contingency funding sources exist if redemption demand exceeds expectations?
Stress testing should incorporate extreme but plausible redemption scenarios to ensure liquidity buffers remain sufficient under adverse conditions.
What Assets Back the Stablecoin Reserves?
The composition and management of reserve assets is central to the stability and credibility of any stablecoin.
Stablecoin issuers typically maintain reserve portfolios intended to support redemption at par value. These reserves may include cash deposits, Treasury securities, repurchase agreements or other short-term liquid instruments.
For payment use cases, reserve quality directly impacts counterparty confidence in settlement finality and redemption timing. Ensuring that the conversion from digital to fiat currency meets predictable SLAs is critical to both liquidity management and market confidence in redemption of issued stablecoins.
Boards should ensure that reserve management policies prioritize liquidity, transparency and risk management. The quality and maturity profile of reserve assets must support rapid redemption activity, with highly liquid assets generally providing greater resilience during market stress.
Boards should also require clear policies governing reserve allocation, investment limits and risk tolerances. Transparent disclosure of reserve composition can reinforce market confidence and demonstrate prudent governance practices.
Who Is Responsible for Monitoring Financial Crime Risk Across the Ecosystem?
Stablecoin ecosystems often involve complex networks of participants including issuing institutions, cryptocurrency exchanges, digital wallet providers, blockchain infrastructure platforms, payment processors and fintech intermediaries.
Within this distributed environment, financial crime risks – including money laundering, sanctions evasion, and illicit finance – can emerge across multiple layers of the transaction chain. Unlike card networks with centralized fraud controls, stablecoin payment flows require distributed monitoring across wallets, exchanges and on-chain activity.
Regulators emphasize that outsourcing operational activities does not outsource regulatory responsibility.6 Banks involved in stablecoin activities remain responsible for anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance.
Boards should require management to clearly define responsibility for transaction monitoring, oversight of third-party partners, wallet onboarding and customer identification processes, and integration of blockchain analytics tools into existing financial crime monitoring systems.7
The board should ensure that they have enabled the ability to comply with sanctions including maintaining the technology required to fulfill lawful orders to block, seize, freeze, burn or prevent the transfer of outstanding stablecoins.
FinCEN is currently developing rulemaking addressing secondary market monitoring; accordingly, bank boards should ensure their technology infrastructure is capable of supporting future regulatory changes and supervisory guidance.8 Strong third‑party risk management frameworks are essential for ensuring compliance across the broader ecosystem.
What Is the Contingency Plan if the Issuance Platform Experiences Operational Disruption?
Stablecoin platforms rely on sophisticated technology infrastructure including blockchain networks, smart contracts, custody systems and digital wallet integrations.
Potential disruption scenarios may include blockchain outages, smart contract vulnerabilities, cybersecurity incidents, vendor failures, or disruptions affecting wallet providers or exchanges.
Boards should ensure that management has implemented comprehensive operational resilience frameworks addressing these risks. Governance considerations include contingency plans for technology outages; cybersecurity safeguards and incident response protocols; business continuity planning; and procedures to maintain redemption capability during disruptions. Operational resilience must address not only system uptime but also the handling of in-flight transactions, reconciliations and dispute resolution, which are areas that differ substantially from traditional payment network rules.
Recovery and resolution planning should also address circumstances where stablecoin issuance must be suspended or wound down, ensuring customer funds remain protected and accessible.
Conclusion
Stablecoins represent a rapidly evolving segment of the financial system, combining elements of banking, payments infrastructure and digital asset technology.
For financial institutions considering participation in this market, the strategic opportunity must be balanced with careful evaluation of regulatory expectations, financial risk exposures and operational complexities.
By focusing on legal classification, liquidity resilience, reserve management, financial crime oversight and operational continuity, bank boards can ensure that stablecoin initiatives are pursued within disciplined governance and risk management frameworks.
Institutions that integrate strong governance, transparent risk management practices and proactive regulatory engagement will be best positioned to navigate the opportunities and challenges associated with digital dollar innovation.
Footnotes:
1: The regulatory clarity and permission in the U.S. focuses on U.S. Dollar-denominated stablecoins where each individual coin represents a dollar. Accordingly, this article focuses on those 1:1 USD-backed stablecoins.
2: See The White House, “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Signs GENIUS Act Into Law,” (July 18, 2025).
3: For the business context of the GENIUS Act and implications for business, see Steven S. NcNew, “The Impact of the GENIUS Act on Businesses and Banks: Modernizing Financial Systems With Programmable, Blockchain-Based Stablecoins,” FTI Consulting (Oct. 14, 2025).
4: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Statement on Stablecoins,” (April 4, 2025).
5: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “GENIUS Act Regulations: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (Feb. 25, 2026).
6: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. “Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management” (June 6, 2023).
7: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, “Third-Party Relationships: A Guide for Community Banks,” OCC Bulletin 2024-11 (May 3, 2024).
8: Department of the Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, “Delaying the Effective Date of the Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers,” 31 CFR Parts 1010 and 1032 (Jan. 1, 2026).
Related Insights
Related Information
Published
April 21, 2026
Key Contacts
Senior Managing Director
Managing Director
Managing Director
Managing Director