Anchorage Digital backs GENIUS Act but requests secondary market sanctions clarity
The regulated crypto bank Anchorage Digital submitted a public comment letter supporting the U.S. Treasury Department’s proposed framework under the official press release sb0435. The initiative aims to regulate payment stablecoins under strict anti-money laundering standards.
The firm delivered its formal feedback this Wednesday, June 10, 2026. In the document, the institution expresses broad support for the risk-based approach designed by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
However, the company emphasized the need for crucial clarifications regarding the scope of the rules. Anchorage highlighted its specific concerns within a detailed public comment letter focused on mitigating legal compliance risks for digital asset infrastructure providers.
The Origin of the Rules Under the GENIUS Act
The Treasury’s original regulatory proposal, introduced on April 8, 2026, intends to classify permitted payment stablecoin issuers as traditional financial institutions. This designation officially subjects them to the comprehensive monitoring mandates of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
The framework requires stablecoin firms to implement customer due diligence procedures and file suspicious activity reports. These legal obligations stem directly from the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, widely known as the GENIUS Act.
This regulatory movement reflects a broader shift in digital asset geopolitics. These federal requirements alter the long-term dynamics of sovereign game theory regarding the global adoption of dollar-backed stablecoins.
Demands for Clarity in the Secondary Market
Anchorage explicitly argues that regulated stablecoin issuers should not face strict liability for failing to independently identify sanctioned individuals. This condition specifically refers to transactions occurring on secondary markets through automated smart contracts.
The bank notes that primary markets represent the only stage where an issuer maintains absolute visibility of its customers. Extending liability to secondary transactions without defined boundaries creates legal uncertainty that could hinder payment infrastructure innovation.
Beyond secondary market concerns, the institution directed by Kevin Wysocki requested technical guidance on two additional regulatory aspects. First, they proposed allowing companies to maintain a single, enterprise-wide anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing program.
Second, the company urged regulators not to automatically classify all institutional stablecoin clients as traditional respondent accounts. Anchorage currently handles infrastructure for five major stablecoins, including digital assets tied to partners like Tether and Western Union.
Divergent Perspectives Across the Crypto Industry
The cooperative tone maintained by Anchorage differs from other prominent industry participants. The advocacy groups representing the crypto derivatives platform Hyperliquid and venture capital firm Paradigm filed separate notes, offering a far more critical assessment of the joint proposal.
These ongoing regulatory discussions emerge alongside separate corporate updates within the digital finance sector. Recently, market analysis focused on a fee-funded buyback program outlined in Hyperliquid’s filings, amid intense community debates regarding on-chain wallet activity.
The public comment window provides federal authorities with essential industry feedback before drafting the final text. The U.S. Treasury Department is expected to evaluate these institutional recommendations over the remaining months of the current year.
The subsequent final ruling will establish permanent operational compliance boundaries for digital asset enterprises in the jurisdiction. Compliance officers will closely monitor the upcoming regulatory publications from FinCEN and OFAC to finalize their compliance structures.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
