Consensys Challenges OCC’s Stablecoin Rules, Urges Treasury to Narrow Yield and DeFi Restrictions

TLDR:

• Consensys argues the OCC’s yield ban wrongly extends to third-party distributors beyond what Congress intended.
• The firm says DeFi lending on platforms like Aave is an active user choice, not issuer-paid yield on stablecoins.
• Consensys recommends disclosure and pool segregation over outright prohibition on multi-brand stablecoin issuance.
• The rules, if left unchanged, could favor large institutions and put OCC-supervised issuers at a competitive disadvantage.

Consensys submitted a formal comment letter to the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s proposed stablecoin rules.

The letter responds to the OCC’s framework implementing the GENIUS Act’s payment stablecoin provisions. While Consensys acknowledged the OCC’s effort, it identified three areas needing revision.

These areas relate to yield restrictions, DeFi access, and multi-brand stablecoin issuance. The outcome of these rules will shape how the U.S. stablecoin market develops.

Yield Restrictions and the Role of Distributors

The GENIUS Act prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders. Congress wanted to prevent stablecoins from competing with bank deposits through passive returns. Consensys confirmed it recognizes this concern and accepts Congress’s position on the matter.

However, the OCC extended the prohibition to cover “related third parties.” This broader category sweeps in independent distribution partners that co-brand or white-label a stablecoin product.

Consensys argued that a distributor using its own commercial fee to offer user incentives is not acting as an issuer.

Consensys explained in the letter that such a distributor is “a business competing for customers with its own money, as every business does.”

This is standard commercial practice and not the conduct Congress sought to restrict. Congress also rejected two separate amendments that would have extended the yield ban to non-issuers.

Therefore, the OCC’s proposed rule oversteps the statutory line Congress deliberately drew. Consensys called on the OCC to revise this provision to align with legislative intent and respect the boundaries Congress set.

DeFi Access and the Multi-Brand Stablecoin Issue

On the DeFi question, Consensys pointed to how MetaMask users interact with protocols like Aave or Morpho. When a user deposits stablecoins into such platforms, they make an active investment decision. They accept protocol risk and earn yield from borrowers in that specific market.

Consensys clarified that this activity is not “the issuer paying them to hold a stablecoin.” The GENIUS Act itself excludes non-custodial software interfaces from regulated intermediary status. Consensys argued the final rule should confirm that DeFi access falls under this same carve-out.

Regarding multi-brand stablecoins, the OCC is considering prohibiting a single licensed issuer from supporting multiple co-branded products.

Consensys stated that “disclosure is the right instrument here, not prohibition.” Requiring issuers to identify themselves and explain reserve structures would address transparency concerns directly.

If disclosure alone proves insufficient, Consensys suggested pool segregation as a proportionate remedy. A full prohibition “forecloses the distribution model entirely rather than managing the risk it presents.”

It also places OCC-supervised issuers at a disadvantage compared to FDIC-supervised issuers facing no equivalent restriction.

The post Consensys Challenges OCC’s Stablecoin Rules, Urges Treasury to Narrow Yield and DeFi Restrictions appeared first on Blockonomi.