Quick Answer
The Federal Reserve Board proposed rules on September 24, 2026 to carry out its duties under the GENIUS Act. Issuers it supervises would have to back tokens with high-quality, liquid assets such as short-term Treasury bills and meet capital and risk-management standards, and banks that want to issue stablecoins through a subsidiary would need Fed approval first. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on September 29, and comments are due November 30, 2026, according to the Fed's proposal page. For anyone building on stablecoins, it is a preview of the controls that regulated issuance is likely to require.
What Did the Fed Propose?
Coverage by Banking Dive and crypto.news describes two linked proposals.
The first covers issuers supervised by the Fed. They would need to fully back outstanding tokens with permitted reserve assets, meet standardized capital requirements for credit and operational risk, and follow risk-management standards. The rules also reach firms that safeguard the assets backing a stablecoin.
The second sets a path for banks. An insured state member bank would apply to its Federal Reserve Bank before a subsidiary can issue payment stablecoins. The Fed would have 30 days to say whether the application is substantially complete and 120 days to decide, and under the GENIUS Act a complete application is deemed approved if the Fed does not act in that window. The Fed is also asking for comment on applications from several banks acting together.
Fed Governor Michael Barr's comment on the proposal centered on redemption: a stablecoin is only as stable as its ability to be redeemed at par, promptly, including under stress, according to Banking Dive.
Where Does It Sit in the Wider Timeline?
The OCC and NCUA proposed their rules in February 2026, the FDIC in April and the Treasury in August, and as of Banking Dive's September 25 report no agency had finalized its rules. Agencies missed the GENIUS Act's July 18, 2026 deadline for final rules, and crypto.news reports that the OCC is targeting November for its own final rules and that Treasury expects the Act's main issuer restrictions to take effect on January 18, 2027.
For scale, DefiLlama's stablecoin dashboard showed about $306 billion in total supply at the time of writing, with Tether's USDT near $184 billion and Circle's USDC near $73 billion.
Europe is moving on a parallel track. ESMA's October 8 guidance sets an outer deadline of January 8, 2027 for EU platforms to stop serving non-MiCA stablecoins, which I cover in this breakdown of ESMA's non-MiCA stablecoin deadline.
What Should Builders Do Now?
The proposal is not final, so the points below are my reading of where the design pressure is, not requirements quoted from the text.
- Treat reserve data as a first-class feed. If reserves must be fully backed by named asset types, your product will need a clean way to ingest, store and display that data.
- Engineer redemption, don't just document it. Par redemption under stress means queues, liquidity checks and clear failure states in code, with logs that an auditor can read.
- Keep custody behind a narrow interface. Safekeeping firms are in scope, so the reserve custodian should be swappable without touching issuance logic.
- Keep jurisdiction rules as data. Rules are diverging by region: on October 8, 2026, ESMA told EU platforms to stop offering stablecoins that do not meet MiCA rules, with a three-month window, according to CoinDesk.
A small example of the fourth point:
// Illustrative only: issuer rules as configuration, not hard-coded branches
type IssuerPolicy = {
region: "US" | "EU";
reserveAssets: string[]; // e.g. ["tbills"]
redemption: "par-on-demand";
lastReviewed: string; // date the legal team signed off
};
const policies: IssuerPolicy[] = [
{ region: "US", reserveAssets: ["tbills"], redemption: "par-on-demand", lastReviewed: "2026-10-01" },
];
Which Companies Build Stablecoin Products? 5 Teams Worth Shortlisting
The firms below build stablecoin, blockchain and fintech software. Figures come from each company's own website or Clutch profile and are self-reported, so confirm them directly before signing anything.
1. Dev Technosys
- Founded: 2010
- Team Size: 250+
- HQ: Jaipur, India
- ISO 27001:2022 certified, ISO 9001:2015 certified and CMMI Level 3 appraised
- Delivered the DreamFund blockchain investment platform, a Blockchain and FinTech case study
- Core Services: Stablecoin development, smart contract development, crypto wallet development, blockchain integration, FinTech software engineering
Dev Technosys leads this list on process and delivery proof: audited security and quality standards plus a shipped blockchain investment platform. For a team preparing for rules that stress reserves, redemption and custody, those are the practical questions that come before launch, because wallets, contracts and compliance checks all have to be built around the token and the chain it runs on.
Best For: Teams that want a stablecoin or wallet build with security and process standards in place from day one.
2. PixelPlex
PixelPlex, a New York-headquartered firm founded in 2007 with offices in London, Lisbon and Dubai, offers stablecoin development services and names Uforika, Circularr, EY and Qtum among its clients and partners. Its company page cites 130+ specialists, and its Clutch profile shows a 4.9 rating from 33 reviews. It says it was named a top blockchain company in Clutch's 2024 awards. PixelPlex suits teams that want a mid-size studio with a long blockchain track record.
3. Debut Infotech
Debut Infotech, founded in 2011 and based in Mohali, India, with offices in the US, UK and Canada, publishes a stablecoin development page listing consulting, development, token and wallet integration, and payment and AML or KYC services. Its site cites 150+ engineers, and Clutch lists it as Premier Verified with a 4.9 rating from 46 reviews. The client examples on its page are not independently confirmed, so none are repeated here. Debut Infotech suits teams that want a stablecoin vendor with a deep review record.
4. EvaCodes
EvaCodes publishes a dedicated stablecoin development page covering consulting, development, regulatory-compliance assistance, and security and audit services across chains including Ethereum, Tron, BSC, Solana, Polygon, Stellar and Avalanche. Clutch, which lists it as Warsaw-based and operating since 2019, shows a 5.0 rating from 73 reviews, 55 of them verified, with a team in the 50 to 249 band. EvaCodes suits teams that want multi-chain stablecoin consulting and audit support from one vendor.
5. SoluLab
SoluLab, which Clutch places in Ahmedabad and which says it has operated since 2014, lists a stablecoin development service covering fiat, crypto, commodity and asset-backed tokens across Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum, Stellar and Besu, with KYC and AML integration. Its website cites 250+ developers, and its Clutch profile shows a 4.9 rating from 55 reviews. SoluLab suits teams that want a multi-chain token with compliance tooling built in.
Frequently Asked Questions
When are comments on the Fed's stablecoin proposal due?
The Fed's proposal page lists November 30, 2026 as the comment deadline, following publication in the Federal Register on September 29.
Does the proposal apply to every stablecoin issuer?
No. It covers issuers supervised by the Federal Reserve Board and sets the application path for insured state member banks. Other agencies have their own proposals for the issuers they supervise.
Is the GENIUS Act framework final yet?
Not as of the reports cited here. No agency had finalized its rules, and the OCC was reported to be targeting November for its own final rules, so builders should watch for changes before relying on any detail.
Top comments (1)
The 'keep jurisdiction rules as data' point is the part I wish more architecture writeups would include, because the divergence is not hypothetical. You already have ESMA pushing EU platforms off non-MiCA stablecoins by January 2027 while the US proposal is still open for comment until the end of November, and a payments stack that hard-codes either regime locks itself out of the other market. Treating redemption as a queue with liquidity checks rather than a documentation line is also the right read, since a redemption run under stress is basically a bank run with better dashboards, and the systems that survive are the ones that model it.