Fed Proposes Two-Day Redemption Window and 2% Capital Charge for Stablecoin Issuers

What just happened

Two Fed proposals landed for public comment on September 24, 2026, translating the GENIUS Act into operational rules. Decrypt reports the central bank opened comment on requirements compelling every issuer it supervises to back tokens fully with safe assets and to create an application process for banks that want to issue stablecoins. The Block adds that the proposals include reserve-asset limits alongside standardized capital requirements.

The numbers that will define compliance came from Coinotag: a 2% capital surcharge on issuers and a mandatory two-day redemption window. The same source notes that Fed official Barr pushed for open redemption rights in the rule text. Cointelegraph BR confirms the proposals also mandate new reserve disclosures on top of the 1:1 backing the GENIUS Act itself already requires.

The GENIUS Act was signed in July 2025 and drew the broad legal lines: 1:1 reserve backing, a federal-vs-state issuer split, and limits on who can issue payment stablecoins. What arrived in September 2026 is the Fed filling in the capital and liquidity numbers that will actually determine whether a product can exist in the US market.

Why it matters

The 2% capital surcharge is the sharpest edge. Stablecoin issuers running on thin treasury spreads will absorb a direct cost hit, and that cost lands differently depending on scale. A large bank with existing capital buffers treats 2% as manageable overhead. A fintech-native issuer without a deposit base has to build that cushion from scratch, which tightens the path to profitability before a single token ships.

The two-day redemption window reshapes how issuers manage liquidity. Meeting a 48-hour guarantee means reserve assets must stay genuinely liquid, not parked in instruments that need settlement time or secondary-market exits. Longer-duration Treasuries or money-market positions with weekly liquidity cycles do not fit cleanly into that window. Issuers will need to restructure reserve portfolios, and that restructuring affects yield, which affects the economics of any token that competes partly on the rate it passes to holders.

For exchanges and builders, the bank application pathway matters as much as the capital rules. Decrypt describes a formal process for banks seeking Fed approval to issue stablecoins. That process creates winners, because approved bank issuers gain a regulatory stamp that non-bank issuers will struggle to match, and it creates delays, because any exchange building a product around a specific stablecoin now depends on an issuer clearing that application queue. Builders integrating stablecoins into DeFi protocols or payment rails need to track which issuers are under Fed supervision versus state oversight, since the rule text applies differently across those categories.

Coin68 frames the proposals as the Fed laying the groundwork for supervised stablecoin issuance, which signals that the agency intends to be an active gatekeeper, not a passive observer, as the market grows.

What changes by the implementation deadline

The proposals are currently open for public comment, which means no firm compliance date is locked in from the sources we reviewed. What the comment period does set is a window for the industry to contest, modify, or accept the 2% surcharge and the two-day window before they harden into final rules.

Once final rules publish, Fed-supervised issuers must meet the reserve-asset limits, the capital standard, and the new disclosure requirements. Banks that want to issue stablecoins but have not yet applied through the new process need to open that application before they can legally launch under the framework. The 1:1 backing mandate from the GENIUS Act itself is already in force since the July 2025 signing; the Fed proposals add the operational specifics that turn that mandate into auditable compliance.

Issuers currently operating under state licenses face a different clock. The GENIUS Act created a federal-vs-state split, and the Fed rules apply to issuers under federal supervision. State-supervised issuers are watching their own regulators, who may or may not align their timelines with the Fed's.

What's still uncertain

The comment period is the first uncertainty. Industry feedback on the 2% capital number has historically shifted final rules. If large banking groups argue the surcharge is calibrated incorrectly for stablecoin-specific risk versus deposit-taking risk, the final number could move. We do not know yet whether Barr's push for open redemption rights, as Coinotag reports, reflects the majority view inside the Fed or a minority position that could be diluted.

The federal-vs-state split baked into the GENIUS Act itself remains a source of friction. A stablecoin issuer operating under a state money-transmitter license in a state with competing rules sits in an ambiguous position until state regulators publish their own implementation guidance. That guidance does not exist yet in any source we reviewed.

Non-bank issuers who do not fall under Fed supervision face their own regulatory gap. The proposals focus on Fed-supervised entities. What rules apply to non-bank issuers under other federal or state regulators is still being worked out, and the timeline for that clarity is not established in any of the current sources.

Our take

The 2% capital surcharge and two-day redemption window are the two numbers worth tracking closely through the comment period. If either shifts materially in the final rule, the market structure implications change. We are watching for final rulemaking dates and for which large bank issuers formally apply first, because those early applications will signal which institutions believe they can meet the reserve-asset and disclosure bar.

For traders holding stablecoins on US-regulated exchanges, the 1:1 backing and reserve disclosure requirements add a layer of verifiable information that did not exist formally before. Issuers who publish reserve reports aligned with the new disclosure standard are worth tracking as the safer counterparty in a market where reserve quality has historically been opaque.

Builders deploying stablecoins in DeFi or payment products should audit which issuers are under Fed supervision versus state oversight now, before the final rules arrive. The two-day redemption requirement affects smart-contract design if your protocol assumes instant redemption as a price-stability mechanism. Start mapping that dependency gap early.

• Track the comment period outcome on the 2% surcharge: the final number determines issuer economics
• Monitor which banks file the new stablecoin application with the Fed, as approvals signal the first compliant bank-issued dollar tokens
• Verify reserve disclosure alignment for any stablecoin your exchange or protocol currently holds
• Audit smart-contract redemption assumptions against the two-day window before final rules land

FAQ

What does the Fed's 2% capital requirement mean for stablecoin issuers?

Issuers under Fed supervision must hold capital equal to 2% of their stablecoin liabilities as a buffer, according to the proposals reported by Coinotag. This adds direct cost pressure on issuers operating on narrow treasury spreads.

What assets can back a stablecoin under the new GENIUS Act rules?

The Fed proposals require issuers to back tokens fully with safe assets and impose reserve-asset limits, per Decrypt and The Block. The GENIUS Act itself already requires 1:1 reserve backing, and the proposals define which asset types qualify under Fed supervision.

How long does a stablecoin holder have to redeem under the proposed rules?

The Fed proposals set a two-day redemption window, meaning issuers must honor redemption requests within 48 hours, as reported by Coinotag and confirmed by Cointelegraph BR.