The OCC Left One Door Open on Stablecoin Yield. Someone Gets the 3.5%.

The OCC finished its stablecoin rule on October 21, and the headline fight is about one thing: who is allowed to pay you for holding a dollar token. The agency dropped the proposed presumption that a partner paying rewards on a stablecoin is evading the ban on issuer interest. It did not legalize those rewards. It simply declined to assume they are illegal. I think that is the right call on the merits, I think it is a legal gray zone that will be tested, and I think the first company to feel the money is the issuer that earns the interest on the reserves.

Key Highlights

• The rule: On October 21, 2026 the OCC issued its final rule implementing the GENIUS Act for the stablecoin issuers it will supervise, effective January 18, 2027.¹
• The yield change: The final rule removes the proposed rebuttable presumption that yield paid through an issuer's affiliates or related third parties breaks the statutory ban, and says the agency will look at arrangements case by case.²
• The safety changes: Redemptions must be paid within two business days with no seven-day extension, an issuer must notify the OCC within 24 hours if redemption requests top 10% of a brand's outstanding value, and the proposed 20-day average-maturity cap on reserves is gone.³
• The fight: The White House economists estimated a yield ban would add only $2.1 billion, or 0.02%, to bank lending, while community banks cite a loss of at least $850 billion in lending if yield is allowed.^{3, 4}
• The idea: Circle Internet Group (CRCL) traded near $86 on Thursday morning, down about 4.6% a day after a 4.5% gain, and its revenue is reserve interest that just got a rate tailwind.⁵

Here is the sentence that explains why this matters. The statute bans an issuer from paying "any form of interest or yield" to holders, and the OCC has now said it will not presume that a rewards program run by a partner is a back door to the same thing. Banks wanted that presumption. They did not get it. The money at stake is the interest on tens of billions of dollars of Treasury bills, and a lot of people want a share.

The surface story

The GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins, which are tokens that promise to be redeemable one for one in dollars. The OCC, the Treasury Department's bank regulator, wrote the rules for the issuers under its watch. The proposal came out on March 2, 2026 and drew about 328 comments.^{1, 6}

Nobody is arguing about the reserve rules. The argument is about yield. Congress wrote that issuers cannot pay interest to holders. It did not say whether an exchange that holds the tokens, and shares in the reserve income, can pay its own customers rewards. That is the gap. In the proposal, the OCC had planned to treat issuer payments to affiliates and related third parties as presumed evasion unless the issuer proved otherwise. In the final rule it said it does not think it is appropriate to impose that presumption "at this time".²

Markets noticed. Circle and Coinbase shares each rose more than 4% on the day, and TD Cowen's Jaret Seiberg warned that the result creates uncertainty that the Supreme Court may ultimately have to settle.⁷ Today both gave back part of it. Circle was down 4.6% and Coinbase was also lower when I checked.⁵

The mechanism

Start with how a stablecoin makes money. The issuer takes your dollar, buys short-term Treasury bills and repurchase agreements, and keeps the interest. Circle's reserve income was $667.7 million last quarter on an average of $76.5 billion of USDC outstanding, a return of about 3.5%.⁸ The token holder gets a dollar that does not earn anything.

Now add the middleman. Under its collaboration agreement, Coinbase receives all of the reserve income on USDC held on its own platform and half of the remaining ecosystem income.⁹ In the second quarter, Circle's costs under that agreement came to $324.6 million.¹⁰ Coinbase can use part of that income to fund rewards for customers who hold USDC.

That is the loophole in plain terms. The issuer cannot pay you. The issuer can pay a distributor, and the distributor can pay you. The ban in the statute closes the first step. The question the OCC just answered is whether it should presume the second step is the same thing in disguise. It said no. It also said it keeps its authority to stop evasion, that it will assess arrangements one at a time, and that it did not define interest or yield.^{2, 11}

The ban applies equally to retail and institutional holders, and it does not apply to deposits.³ That last point is the heart of the bank complaint. A bank can pay you interest on a deposit. A stablecoin partner paying you a reward looks the same to a customer and sits outside the bank's regulatory cost.

Winners and losers

Winners. Issuers and platforms that already run distribution deals. Their economics are not frozen, and the regulator chose not to reopen them. The administration is pleased. Treasury Secretary Bessent called the rule a "watershed moment in American finance".³

Losers. Bank trade groups, which asked for the opposite. The American Bankers Association said the rule would "preserve the status quo for crypto platforms despite Congress's clear intent to protect local lending".¹² The Bank Policy Institute described a rule that "leaves room for ambiguity on yield".¹¹

The in-betweens. Banks that want to issue their own tokens now face a cleaner path to approval, but they also face the same competitors. The OCC wrote a separate fact sheet for community banks that want to issue or hold payment stablecoins.¹³ Starting January 18, 2027, issuing a stablecoin without prior approval carries criminal penalties, and the agency will open applications after the paperwork clears the Office of Management and Budget.¹⁴

The numbers that matter

I want to put the policy argument in dollars, because the two sides are miles apart. The White House economists looked at what a yield ban would do. They found it would move about $54 billion into bank deposits, create only $6.5 billion of extra lending capacity, and raise lending by $2.1 billion, or 0.02%. They put the net cost to consumers at $800 million, a cost-benefit ratio of 6.6.⁴ Community banks would gain about $500 million of lending, or 24% by that analysis. In the worst case the lending gain reaches $531 billion, or 4.4%.⁴

The Independent Community Bankers of America points the other way. It cites a decline of at least $850 billion in community bank lending if yield-bearing stablecoins are allowed to spread.³ Those numbers cannot both be right, and they come from groups with a stake in the answer.

Now look at the other side of the ledger, the issuer. Circle took in $701.3 million of revenue and reserve income in the second quarter. It paid out $410.4 million in distribution and transaction costs, which is 58.5% of the total by my arithmetic. Coinbase alone was $324.6 million, or 46.3% by my arithmetic. After all costs of distribution Circle kept $289 million, a margin of 41.2%.^{8, 10}

Think about what that chart says. The fight in Washington is about whether a customer can earn a few percent. The fight inside the income statement is about who keeps the 3.5% that the reserves earn. Banks want it as deposits. Distributors want it as rewards and revenue share. Circle keeps about four dollars in ten.

The free-market read

Let me steelman the banks first. The ABA and the ICBA are not making up the statute. Congress wrote a ban on issuer interest. An agency that declines to presume evasion is leaving a statutory ban to be enforced one case at a time, and case-by-case enforcement favors the firms with the best lawyers. If you believe the law should mean what it says, you should be uneasy about a rule that says "we will know it when we see it."

I still land on the side of the OCC, for three reasons. First, the deposit competition argument is thin. The White House estimate says the lending effect is tiny, and even the banks' larger figure is a forecast, not a measurement. Second, the people being protected are depositors who currently earn less than the bills the bank holds, and a customer who can earn more somewhere else is the market working. Third, the ban itself protects an incumbent cartel. Banks pay savers less than the going rate because they can. A token holder with an alternative forces them to compete.

But I will not give the winners a pass either. Circle and Coinbase are incumbents of a different kind. A distribution deal where one platform takes close to half of the issuer's revenue is a toll, not a free market. And a gray-zone rule is a gift to whoever already has a compliance team. A real fix would be for Congress to say plainly what a permitted reward is. Until it does, both camps will keep lobbying a regulator instead of competing for customers.

There is also a quieter point. The safety changes in the final rule are sensible. Two business days for redemption is a hard standard. The 24-hour notice at a 10% outflow gives supervisors a warning before a run, not after. A 40% limit on any one counterparty, with exceptions for the government, qualifying custodians and centrally cleared repo, keeps reserves from piling into one name.³ I would rather see those rules tough and the yield rule light than the reverse.

The bear case

Here is how I could be wrong, and I take it seriously.

First, the OCC said it will "closely monitor" the industry and adjust the framework "to the extent necessary".³ A rule that is easy to loosen is easy to tighten. If the agency sees rewards programs drawing deposits, it can write a new rule or bring cases against the pairing of an issuer and a distributor.

Second, the rule does not bind everyone. It covers the issuers the OCC supervises. A court challenge or a Congressional fix could reach further, and TD Cowen's warning about the Supreme Court is the kind of tail risk that does not show up in earnings estimates.⁷

Third, Circle's income moves with short rates. Its reserve return fell from 4.14% in the second quarter of 2025 to 3.5% in the second quarter of 2026, and reserve income rose only because the amount of USDC grew.⁵ If rates reverse, the tailwind turns around.

Fourth, the distribution bill is large. More than half of Circle's revenue goes to partners, and one partner takes nearly half. If Coinbase renegotiates, the margin changes quickly.

Fifth, the price. The stock is not cheap, and the day-one gain was already partly reversed. I will cover that next.

The Idea

Circle Internet Group (CRCL). Let me be direct about the link. Circle is the pure-play issuer, so the OCC decision matters for it in two ways. It removes the risk that the biggest rewards channel for USDC would be presumed illegal, and it arrives just as short rates have moved up.

The rate point is simple arithmetic. The effective federal funds rate rose from 3.63% to 3.88% on September 17.¹⁵ The three-month Treasury bill averaged 3.62% in the second quarter, 3.80% in the third quarter, and 4.06% from October 1 through October 20.¹⁶ Circle's reported reserve return rate was 3.5% in the second quarter. If it follows the bills, the next two reports should show it rising.

CRCL traded at $85.56 Thursday morning, down 4.6% from a $89.71 close. The market value is $21.7 billion, and the 52-week range is $49.90 to $147.44, so the shares sit 42.0% below the high and 71.5% above the low by my arithmetic.⁵ Analysts expect 2026 earnings of $1.11 a share and 2027 earnings of $1.50, which puts the stock at about 77 times and 57 times those figures by my arithmetic.⁵

The second-quarter report was solid but not flashy. Revenue and reserve income rose 7% to $701.3 million, USDC in circulation rose 19% to $73.3 billion, and net income was $48.2 million, or $0.18 a share.⁸ Circle raised its outlook for the margin after distribution costs to 41.7% to 43.7%, from 38% to 40%.¹⁷

Here is the thesis in one sentence. If the OCC leaves third-party rewards alone and bill yields hold above 4%, Circle's reserve return should rise from 3.5% and its earnings should step up from $0.18 a quarter. The next test is the third-quarter report on November 4, before the market opens, where analysts look for about $0.36 to $0.40 a share on about $785 million of revenue.⁵

I would call this a rate and regulation trade, not a bargain. The thesis is wrong if the reserve return rate fails to rise in the next two reports, if USDC circulation falls below about $70 billion, or if the OCC or a court clamps down on third-party rewards. I track every idea in public, and you can see how the earlier ones have done on the Free Markets Report Idea Scorecard.

What to watch next

Three things will tell you whether this matters.

First, the application window. The OCC will announce when it starts accepting applications after the Office of Management and Budget clears the paperwork, and the prior-approval requirement starts on January 18, 2027.¹⁴ The first approvals will show who the agency thinks is ready, and what it expects of reward programs.

Second, the third-quarter report from Circle on November 4. Watch the reserve return rate, the average USDC balance and the distribution bill, in that order. I track this and other dated events on the Deregulation Investor's Catalyst Calendar.

Third, the banks. The ABA and the ICBA will push Congress to write the ban more tightly, and the first agency or court action on a rewards program will move the whole group. A single enforcement case would change the picture in a day.

The OCC left one door open and called it restraint. I think it is the right door. Someone gets the 3.5%, and for now the market, not the regulator, will decide who.

Related analysis

• Treasury's Stablecoin NPRM Builds a Two-Tier Wall Around the U.S. Market
• The Treasury Just Killed Its Two Biggest Crypto Surveillance Rules
• Congress Stalled So the CFTC Started Writing the Crypto Rulebook

The Free Markets Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Free Markets Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. The Free Markets Report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of our investment services or performance. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT RECEIVE IT. THE INVESTMENTS DISCUSSED MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. INVESTORS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN PARTICULAR FINANCIAL SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES. This report is not an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not authorized to provide such services. All investments involve risk, including the risk of loss of principal. No representation is being made that any security, account, or strategy is or is likely to achieve results similar to those shown. Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives, and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC's charges and expenses. This report is not a prospectus and does not contain all of the information necessary to fully evaluate any security or strategy discussed, including, but not limited to, the risk of adverse effects of related market developments. You should not rely solely on the information contained in this report, and should seek advice based on your situation from a licensed investment professional. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of any investment product before investing. This report may not be copied or distributed without the express written consent of Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. Any decisions made based on any or all of the information in this writing are the sole responsibility of the user, and the user should exercise caution and take appropriate advice before acting.