Stablecoin Launches Hinge on Who Owes Holders Their Dollars

Payments companies considering a branded dollar stablecoin should first determine which entity must repay holders, rather than begin with blockchain selection or transaction pricing, attorney Michael Handelsman argues in a Kelman Law opinion article published by Bitcoin.com News. His analysis contrasts becoming an issuer with using another issuer behind a company’s brand.

The distinction separates a customer-facing payments business from the entity responsible for the token’s redemption promise. Handelsman presents direct issuance as a question of whether that responsibility supports the company’s commercial strengths, while a partnership can leave the fintech focused on merchant relationships and payment integration.

The U.S. regulatory backdrop is the GENIUS Act, enacted on July 18, 2025. According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the legislation establishes a payment stablecoin framework that generally restricts U.S. issuance to permitted issuers and creates regulatory and licensing requirements for those businesses.

The OCC’s implementing final rule takes effect on January 18, 2027, the agency says. Its scope includes qualifying nonbank issuers, specified bank-related entities and certain state-qualified issuers under OCC authority, making the proposed legal structure relevant to which approval and supervisory arrangements apply.

Reserve management is a central operational obligation, not simply a launch requirement. The final rule requires identifiable reserves, separated from other assets, with a value at least equal to outstanding issuance. It also requires issuers to demonstrate they can access and monetize those assets to meet redemptions under both normal and adverse conditions.

Application preparation extends well beyond describing a token. OCC guidance calls for information on management, issuance and redemption processes, capital, liquidity, compliance, third-party risks and audit functions. These requirements illustrate why the choice between issuing and partnering involves organizational capacity as well as the economics of the proposed payment service.

A partnership changes the allocation of work but does not eliminate the need for precise operating agreements, Handelsman writes. His commentary highlights authorization to create tokens, access to redemption, responsibility for failed payments and arrangements for servicing tokens after the commercial relationship ends.

For merchants, those distinctions matter when a token must become usable dollars. The practical implication of the commentary is that customer terms, technical permissions and contractual responsibilities should describe the same process, rather than leave different companies appearing responsible at different stages of a transaction.

Regulatory timing remains another consideration before launch. The OCC’s GENIUS Act webpage says it is not yet accepting issuer applications or waiver requests and will announce when submissions open after the relevant information-collection approval. Its announcement of the final rule also says separate rulemaking will address Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money-laundering and sanctions matters.

The next step for prospective projects is therefore both regulatory and operational. Handelsman recommends testing issuance, redemption and a failed payout against the proposed contracts and account permissions before launch. The OCC, meanwhile, says it will continue coordinating with other agencies and monitoring the developing industry.