Mentioned in This Article
1. What did the OCC decide about stablecoin rewards?
On October 21, 2026, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency finalized its rule implementing the GENIUS Act's ban on interest paid by stablecoin issuers, and it did not settle whether exchange-funded stablecoin rewards such as Coinbase's 3.75% annual payout on USDC are allowed. The rule takes effect on January 18, 2027, and judges each arrangement on its own facts.
The federal regulator for nonbank stablecoin issuers kept the prohibition on issuers paying holders interest or yield. It removed an earlier proposed presumption that such payouts break the law. The result lets existing programs keep running for now, but it gives them no formal protection, and that gap is what makes the outcome uncomfortable for companies that depend on the rewards.
Coinbase (COIN) pays the 3.75% rate to U.S. members of Coinbase One, its paid subscription tier, on USDC balances, the dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by Circle (CRCL). Whether that arrangement is a loyalty benefit or a disguised form of interest is the question the agency has chosen to answer later, one case at a time.
2. How does the GENIUS Act treat interest on stablecoins?
Congress passed the GENIUS Act in July 2025 to create a federal framework for payment stablecoins. One of its central provisions bars the companies that issue stablecoins from paying interest to the people who hold them. The aim was to keep stablecoins functioning as payment instruments rather than as products competing with bank deposits.
The statute speaks to issuers, however, and some exchanges and platforms pay rewards to customers regardless. Coinbase is the best-known example. It funds the rewards itself rather than having Circle pay them, and it presents them as a perk of membership rather than as yield on a token. That structure is the reason the ban has produced a long-running dispute rather than a clear line.
Banks view the arrangement as interest delivered by another route. They have urged the OCC to tighten its rules on payments made through partners, arguing that a stablecoin balance that earns a return competes directly with ordinary deposit accounts. Crypto firms respond that a rewards program run by a distributor is a separate business decision and falls outside a rule written for issuers.
The same issue was a major sticking point in negotiations over the CLARITY Act, the broader crypto market-structure bill, which failed in September. With that legislative route closed for now, the OCC's rulebook has become the main place where the question is being decided.
3. What does the final rule actually say?
The OCC retained the core ban: issuers may not pay holders "any form of interest or yield" tied solely to holding, using or retaining a stablecoin. The agency then added a caveat about intermediaries. A payment that reaches holders through a third party, it said, "might be made, at least in part, for other reasons," which could place it outside the prohibition.
The rule also addresses programs that existed before the law. The OCC declined to presume that rewards schemes that predated the GENIUS Act comply with it, so Coinbase's program receives no grandfathering. Payments for bona fide services generally would not be prohibited, the rule says, provided no other facts point the other way. It does not name any specific arrangement as permitted or forbidden.
In practical terms, the review will turn on the details of each arrangement: who funds the payment, what the customer must do to receive it, and whether it is tied to simply holding USDC or to some other service. The rule's language about payments made for other reasons suggests those details will matter more than the label a company attaches to a program.
The agency also signaled that this is not its last word. As the market develops, it expects to gain enough experience with identifying prohibited transactions to propose a clearer definition of its yield prohibition in a later rulemaking. Until then, the standard is a facts-and-circumstances review rather than a bright-line test.
4. How did banks and Coinbase react?
The reactions split along predictable lines. Rob Nichols, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said the rule preserves the status quo for crypto platforms even though Congress intended to protect local lending. His group had pressed for the stricter test that the OCC dropped.
Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase's chief policy officer, took the opposite view and said there is "a lot to like" in the rule. For the exchange, the removal of the presumption of illegality was the most important change, since it keeps the program available to customers while the agency reviews arrangements individually.
The disagreement also shows how each side measures success. Banks want the agency to treat the substance of a payment, not its label, as decisive. Coinbase wants the agency to accept that a company-funded loyalty perk is a different thing from interest paid by an issuer. The case-by-case approach postpones that contest rather than ending it.
Both readings can be correct at the same time. The rule neither endorses the rewards nor condemns them, so each side can point to language that supports its position and keep arguing for a different outcome in the next round.
5. Why does the interest ban matter to banks?
The argument is rooted in how banks fund themselves. Deposits are the raw material for local lending, and a stablecoin that pays a competitive return could draw balances away from bank accounts. The American Bankers Association framed its objection in exactly those terms, saying Congress meant to protect local lending when it wrote the ban.
A dollar stablecoin is typically backed by cash and short-term government securities, and the reserves generate income. The legal question is who is allowed to keep that income and who may pass it on to users. The statute answers for issuers, but it says less about the distributors that sit between an issuer and the end customer.
That gap is why the wording of the OCC rule drew so much attention. A rule that treated every distributor payment as presumptively prohibited would have ended programs like Coinbase's. A rule that exempted them outright would have left banks with little recourse. The agency chose neither, and kept its discretion.
6. What does this mean for Coinbase customers and shareholders?
For customers, the rewards can continue for now, but the 3.75% rate is not guaranteed in any lasting sense. If the OCC were ever to conclude that a program functions as a way around the interest ban, the payouts could end. Because the rule contains no safe harbor, the program remains open to challenge.
For shareholders, the relevant question is how much of Coinbase's business rests on the rewards. The company has shown that it is willing to fight for them. In January, Chief Executive Brian Armstrong withdrew Coinbase's support for a Senate draft of the CLARITY Act because of amendments that would have ended stablecoin rewards.
The financial stakes are visible in the company's quarterly filing. Stablecoins generated $292.1 million of Coinbase's revenue in the second quarter, according to its 10-Q, which was about a quarter of net revenue. The effect of losing the rewards would depend on two things the headline number does not show: how much the rewards already cost Coinbase, and how much of its stablecoin revenue comes from USDC that does not earn rewards at all.
7. How does the money move between Circle and Coinbase?
Circle earns interest on the reserves that back USDC. Under the agreement between the two companies, described in Circle's IPO filing, Coinbase receives the reserve income on USDC held in Coinbase products after Circle keeps a portion. Coinbase also receives half of the remaining income on most USDC held elsewhere.
This revenue-sharing structure is central to the legal debate. Coinbase is not the issuer, and the rewards it pays come from its own funds, but part of the income that supports it originates with the issuer's reserve earnings. Banks cite that link when they argue that the payments are interest by another name.
Circle's own figures show how large the distribution costs are. The company said it paid about $819 million, or 59 cents of each revenue dollar, to distribution partners and transaction costs in the first half of 2026. The figure shows how much of an issuer's income flows outward to the platforms that bring in balances.
8. What happens next for stablecoin rewards?
The immediate date is January 18, 2027, when the rule takes effect. After that, any challenge would have to come through the OCC's case-by-case review or through a future rulemaking in which the agency defines its yield prohibition more precisely.
The framework adds one more uncertainty. Circle has planned a move to a New York trust company, which leaves open which rulebook would govern USDC rewards once that change takes place. Different regulators could apply different standards to the same arrangement.
Readers following the debate should also keep in mind that the rule is one step in a longer process. The OCC said plainly that it expects to refine the yield prohibition, and the failure of the CLARITY Act in September means Congress has not stepped in to resolve the rewards question itself. Any future change is therefore more likely to come from the agency than from legislation in the near term.
For now, the position is a narrow one: the rewards are neither approved nor prohibited, and the regulator has reserved the right to look at each program on its merits. Holders who rely on the 3.75% payout, and investors who model Coinbase's stablecoin income, are working with a rate that depends on regulatory judgment rather than on settled law.