Five U.S. financial regulators have proposed customer-identification requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers. The proposal is not final, and it does not mean every stablecoin holder or every wallet would face a new identity check.
Comments are due August 21, 2026. If the agencies later adopt a final rule, covered issuers would have to establish written, risk-based customer identification programs for people and organizations opening certain formal accounts with them.
Who would be covered?
The proposal comes from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and National Credit Union Administration. It would treat permitted payment stablecoin issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act for this purpose.
The key trigger is a customer opening a new “account,” as the proposal defines that term. That means a formal relationship with an issuer for activities such as buying stablecoins directly from the issuer, redeeming them directly with the issuer, custody or safekeeping, reserve-related services, certain supporting activities, or services provided through an authorized digital-asset service provider.
The proposed scope is narrower than all stablecoin activity. Owning or controlling an issuer’s stablecoins would not, by itself, create a covered account. The proposal also excludes indirect purchases or redemptions and activity that does not create a formal relationship with the issuer, including cases where the issuer is involved only through a smart contract.
Those exclusions concern this proposed customer identification program. They do not erase other anti-money-laundering, sanctions, reporting, or lawful-order obligations that may apply.
What information would an issuer collect?
Before opening a covered account, an issuer would generally collect:
- a name;
- a birth date for an individual or formation date for an organization;
- a qualifying physical address; and
- an identification number.
The proposal includes specified alternatives for some non-U.S. customers and a limited procedure for an applicant who has applied for, but not yet received, a taxpayer identification number.
An issuer’s written program would then use risk-based procedures to form a reasonable belief that it knows the customer’s identity. Verification could happen within a reasonable time before or after account opening and could use documents, non-documentary methods, or both. The agencies do not prescribe one universal ID document or a particular digital-identity technology.
If identity cannot be reasonably established, the issuer’s procedures would have to address when it should decline to open an account, restrict use while verification continues, close an account after failed verification attempts, and consider whether applicable law calls for a Suspicious Activity Report. The proposal does not say that every failed check automatically requires account closure or a report.
Records, notice, and reliance
Covered issuers would have to tell customers before account opening that identifying information is being requested.
They would also retain basic identifying information for five years after an account closes. Records describing verification methods, results, documents, and how discrepancies were resolved would generally be kept for five years after each record is made.
An issuer could rely on another federally regulated financial institution in defined circumstances, including contractual certification requirements. But the stablecoin issuer would remain responsible for compliance with its customer identification program.
What remains unsettled?
The agencies have issued a joint proposal, not a final rule. The notice provides no final effective date or compliance date, and the eventual language could change in response to comments. The agencies also have not settled every operational, privacy, security, or state-law question that implementation could raise.
The legally published notice and the Federal Reserve docket both list August 21, 2026, as the comment deadline. Anyone submitting a comment should follow the instructions and deadline in the official notice.
For stablecoin users, the practical distinction is important: the proposal focuses on formal account-opening relationships with an issuer, not ordinary ownership or every secondary-market transfer. For issuers and compliance teams, it sketches the information, verification, notice, recordkeeping, and reliance framework that could apply if a final rule is adopted.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal, tax, or investment advice. Requirements can depend on the final rule, the parties involved, and the applicable jurisdiction.