SHARE

June 22, 2022

NYDFS Becomes First US Financial Regulator to Issue Stablecoin Expectations to Virtual Currency Industry

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

On June 8, 2022, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued a new Regulatory Guidance, setting foundational criterial for USD-backed stablecoins used by DFS-regulated entities. This represents the first U.S. state agency to regulate issuers of stablecoins. Generally, issuers that currently issue U.S.-dollar-backed stablecoins under DFS supervision are expected to come into compliance with the Regulatory Guidance within three months. This GT Alert summarizes the Regulatory Guidance.

Regulatory Guidance Criteria for Virtual-Currency Companies Looking to Issue USD-Backed Stablecoins in New York

  • Backing and Redeemability: The stablecoin must be fully backed by a Reserve of assets, meaning that the market value of the Reserve is at least equal to the nominal value of all outstanding units of the stablecoin as of the end of each business day. The issuer of the stablecoin (the "Issuer") must adopt clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by DFS in writing, that confer on any lawful holder of the stablecoin a right to redeem units of the stablecoin from the Issuer in a timely fashion at par for the U.S. dollar.
  • Reserve Requirements: The assets in the Reserve must be segregated from the proprietary assets of the issuing entity and must be held in custody with U.S. state or federally chartered depository institutions and/or asset custodians.

- The Reserve must consist of the following assets: U.S. Treasury Bills the Issuer acquires three months or less from their respective maturities, reverse repurchase agreements fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury bills, U.S. Treasury notes, and/or U.S. Treasury bonds on an overnight basis, subject to DFS-approved requirements concerning overcollateralization, and deposit accounts at U.S. state or federally chartered depository institutions, subject to DFS-approved restrictions.

  • Independent Audits: The Reserve must be subject to an examination of management's assertions at least once per month by an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA) licensed in the United States and applying the attestation standards of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

Other DFS Requirements and Risks Considered

  • Cybersecurity and information technology; network design and maintenance and related technology and operational considerations; Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance; consumer protection; safety and soundness of the issuing entity; and the stability/integrity of the payment system, as applicable.
  • DFS may impose requirements on a stablecoin arrangement to address any of these risks, or any other risks, consistent with DFS's statutory mandate and the laws and regulations relevant to the circumstances.

Application of the Regulatory Guidance

  • The Regulatory Guidance generally applies to stablecoins backed by the U.S. dollar issued under DFS oversight. But, DFS may impose different requirements on any particular USD-backed stablecoin arrangement and will require clear and conspicuous disclosure of any such different requirements.
  • The Regulatory Guidance does not apply to USD-backed stablecoins listed, but not issued, by DFS-regulated entities. DFS does expect regulated entities that list USD-backed stablecoins to consider this guidance when submitting a request for coin issuance or seeking approval for a coin self-certification policy.

The DFS may continue assessing ways in which it can regulate the digital asset market, particularly with current adverse market pressures that have affected cryptocurrencies in recent weeks. Further guidance is anticipated in 2022 on U.S. banking organizations' activities with digital assets.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

Data transfers from a controller in the EEA, to another controller in the EEA, to a processor outside of the EEA

By David A. Zetoony Greenberg Traurig August 02 , 2022

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 28 | Interview with Nadine Mancini

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig August 01 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Nadine Mancini, General Counsel for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in Washington, D.C.

3rd Circuit Issues Practical Death Knell to Nationwide FLSA Collective Actions Involving Employers Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in Circuit

By James N. Boudreau Greenberg Traurig July 29 , 2022

On July 26, 2022, in a win for employers, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a precedential opinion in Christa Fischer, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., et al, No. 21-1683, affirming a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that refused to allow two opt-in plaintiffs to join a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) because the proposed plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime had no connection to Pennsylvania.

More From Litigation

Massachusetts Enacts CROWN Act, Prohibiting Discrimination Against Protective Hairstyles

By Samia M. Kirmani Jackson Lewis P.C. August 04 , 2022

Employers should review their policies, handbooks, and training materials to ensure compliance with the new law.

Bristol-Myers Decision Applies to Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions, Third Circuit Holds

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. August 02 , 2022

Joining two other circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that Bristol-Myers does apply to FLSA collective actions, and therefore, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in putative collective actions, other than in the states in which the employer has its principal place of business or is incorporated.

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Unlawful, Michigan High Court Holds, Overruling Precedent

By Marlo Johnson Roebuck Jackson Lewis P.C. August 01 , 2022

This opinion, with two justices dissenting, comes approximately two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), which held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...