FinWiki
日EN中

Global Stablecoin Regulation: Five-Pole Comparison Matrix

Confidence: Likely Updated 2026-05-24 Review by 2026-11-20 Sources 9 Machine-translated Original (JA)
#fintech#stablecoin#regulation#comparison#GENIUS#MiCA
On this page

Wiki route

This entry sits under fintech index and is the cross-jurisdictional matrix view that sits above the per-regime overviews. It complements the geopolitical lens of three-circles-stablecoin-mra-framework (which collapses the world into three MRA circles), by instead enumerating all five active stablecoin licensing regimes on a feature-by-feature basis so a counsel or treasury team can pick a jurisdiction matrix-wise rather than narratively. For VASP / on-ramp adjacency see exchanges.

[!info] TL;DR By 2026-05 there are five operational stablecoin licensing regimes worldwide — the US GENIUS Act, EU MiCA (EMT/ART), Japan’s three-type EPI regime, the HKMA Stablecoin Ordinance, and MAS PSA + SCS — and they have converged on roughly five non-negotiable principles (1:1 reserves in cash / short sovereign paper, segregated custody, monthly attestation, mandatory legal redemption rights, and a ban on algorithmic SCs) while diverging materially on (a) permitted issuer types, (b) cross-border / third-country access, (c) capital thresholds, and (d) fine print of reserve composition. The result is a regulatory-arbitrage window of 18–24 months before MRA passporting closes the gaps.

Why a five-pole comparison

The single-issuer narrative (“USDC dominates everywhere”) is incorrect once you cross the Atlantic or Pacific. A US-qualified payment stablecoin issued under GENIUS does not automatically get EU EMT status, JP EPI listing, an HK issuer license, or SG SCS recognition. Each regime applies its own reserve, governance, capital, redemption, and AML/CFT rules — and the same USD-pegged token can hold five different legal classifications depending on which entity issues it and where it is offered. The matrix below is the working surface for that reality. For the per-pole deep dives see genius-act-501-denylist-mandate (US), mica-overview (EU), japan-stablecoin-regulatory-landscape (JP), hkma-stablecoin-licensing-overview (HK), singapore-mas-payment-services-act-overview (SG).

Matrix A · Statute, regulator, dates

PoleStatuteLead regulatorEffectiveTransition window
🇺🇸 US GENIUSPayment Stablecoin Act (GENIUS)OCC + Federal Reserve + state regulators (dual-track)Signed 2025-07, ; rule finalization 2026-H218 months for non-compliant issuers to exit the US market
🇪🇺 EU MiCARegulation (EU) 2023/1114EBA (significant) + ESMA + national NCAsSC parts in force 2024-06-30; full MiCA 2024-12-3018 -month grandfathering ended 2026-07
🇯🇵 Japan EPIAmended Payment Services Act (PSA 2022 revision)FSA + Kanto Local Finance Bureau + Trust AssociationIn force 2023-06-01No transition — the new regime was built around three new license types
🇭🇰 HKStablecoin Ordinance (Cap. 656)HKMAIn force 2025-08-01; first licenses 2026-05-216-month sandbox-to-license bridge for existing sandbox participants ^[HKMA stablecoin issuer regime page; HKMA press releases]
🇸🇬 SGPS Act 2019 + SCS Framework 2023-08 + DTSP Regime 2024-04MASPSA 2020-01; SCS Aug 2023; DTSP Apr 2024DTSP grandfathering closed 2025-06

Japan (2023-06) was the earliest mover, HKMA (2025-08) is the latest live regime, and GENIUS (2025-07) carries the greatest institutional weight. MiCA is the only regime written as a single 400-page regulation rather than as a license category attached to a payments act.

Matrix B · Scope and excluded designs

PolePegged currency scopeAlgorithmic SCMulti-asset basketsBearer / unregistered
US GENIUSUSD only (payment stablecoin)❌ Banned❌ Out of scope (treated as commodity / security)❌
EU MiCAAny single fiat (EMT) or multi-asset / multi-fiat (ART)❌ Banned (Art. 19)✅ ART category exists but adoption is near zero❌
Japan EPIJPY + foreign fiat (USD via SBI Circle)❌ Implicitly banned (must be redeemable at par)❌ Not contemplated❌
HKMAAny single fiat (primarily HKD + USD)❌ Banned❌ Out of scope❌
MAS SCSSGD + any G10 single fiat❌ Banned❌ Out of scope (governed by DPT only, not SCS)❌

Convergent line: all five poles ban algorithmic stablecoins as a direct response to the May-2022 UST collapse. Divergent line: only MiCA created a multi-asset class (ART), and it has essentially failed in the market — no large ART issuer has emerged, confirming the same regulation-shapes-product dynamic visible in genius-act-501-denylist-mandate.

Matrix C · Permitted issuer types

PoleIssuer types allowed
US GENIUS(a) Federally qualified payment stablecoin issuer (OCC charter), (b) state-qualified issuer up to $10B in circulation, (c) bank subsidiary
EU MiCA(a) Credit institution (EU bank), (b) authorized e-money institution (EMI) for EMT, (c) authorized ART issuer (separate license)
Japan EPI(a) Trust type (trust bank as issuer), (b) bank type (bank as issuer), (c) funds-transfer-operator type (registered funds transfer operator)
HKMA(a) HK-incorporated stablecoin issuer (new dedicated license), with no piggybacking on an existing bank license
MAS SCS(a) MAS-licensed SCS issuer (dedicated category under the PS Act), incorporated in Singapore with local management

Convergent line: every pole now recognizes a dedicated stablecoin issuer license rather than allowing only banks. Divergent line: only Japan splits the issuer category into three distinct legal forms (trust / bank / funds transfer) with materially different operating envelopes — see japan-epi-three-types-overview for the trust-vs-bank-vs-funds-transfer split.

Matrix D · Reserve composition, redemption, capital

PoleReserve compositionRedemption rightCapital / liquidity minimum
US GENIUS100% in (i) US currency, (ii) demand deposits at insured depositories, (iii) Treasuries up to 93 days, (iv) Treasury-backed reverse repoMandatory at par, T+1 by statuteSet by the primary federal regulator; OCC charter floor around $50M
EU MiCAEMT: 30%+ in EU bank deposits (or 60% for significant EMT) + remainder in HQLA; segregated and bankruptcy remoteMandatory at par, T+1 (Art. 39)EMI minimum capital €350K + own-funds requirement scaling with circulation
Japan EPITrust type: 100% trust segregation; bank type: linked to bank balance sheet + deposit insurance up to ¥10M; funds-transfer type: full segregation via deposit / bondMandatory at face value, T+0/T+1 depending on typeTrust ≥ ¥100M paid-in; bank: banking-law capital adequacy; funds transfer: ¥10M + per-transaction cap
HKMA100% in HKD / USD short Treasuries, central-bank reserves, and segregated bank deposits; daily mark-to-marketMandatory at par, T+1; rejection grounds limited to AMLPaid-in capital ≥ HK$25M and additionally ≥ 2% of issued SC value as ongoing capital
MAS SCS100% in cash, cash equivalents, or sovereign debt up to 3 months rated AA−; held in segregated custody at MAS-approved entitiesMandatory at par, redemption within 5 business daysBase capital ≥ S$1M and the higher of S$1M or 50% of annual OpEx

The strictest reserve regime is MAS SCS (3-month sovereign paper, AA− floor, daily attestation), while the most permissive is US GENIUS (which allows demand deposits at depository institutions and reverse repo). EU MiCA is the only regime that requires a fixed share of reserves to be held at EU banks regardless of credit quality, with the side effect of subsidizing EU banks at the expense of issuer NIM.

Matrix E · Cross-border and third-country access

PoleForeign issuer accessThird-country regime
US GENIUSOnly via a US-domiciled qualified issuer or the Treasury-recognized “comparable foreign regulator” route (§502)Treasury controls the “comparable foreign regulator” list; MRA-driven; Japan signed 2026-02, , EU expected to sign 2026-Q3
EU MiCAForeign EMT issuers must establish an EU CRR credit institution or EMI; no passive-marketing carve-outThird-country offers are prohibited unless by reverse solicitation; no equivalence regime is built into MiCA Level 1
Japan EPIForeign SC can be distributed only via a licensed EPI service provider (e.g., SBI VC Trade for USDC); foreign issuers cannot offer directlyDistributor model + bilateral MRA (US-Japan MRA 2026-02)
HKMAForeign-anchor SC (e.g., USD-pegged) must be issued by an HK-licensed local entity; offshore branches are not acceptedNo third-country equivalence; only bilateral MoUs
MAS SCSForeign issuers must incorporate a Singapore subsidiary and obtain an SCS license; an existing DPT license does not auto-upgradeThe DTSP regime closes the “Singapore hub serves global customers” loophole; no equivalence regime

This is the single biggest divergence. The US created a deliberate equivalence on-ramp (§502 + MRA); the EU built a closed garden with reverse solicitation as the only escape valve; Japan uses the distributor model; HK and SG both require local incorporation. The 18-month arbitrage window mentioned in the TL;DR comes from the time lag between bilateral MRAs being signed (2026–2027) and becoming fully operational (2027–2028).

Matrix F · Disclosure, audit, AML, resolution

PoleAttestation cadenceAML/CFTResolution regime
US GENIUSMonthly reserve composition + annual financial-statement audit; CEO/CFO certificationBSA, OFAC SDN screening, Travel Rule via FinCENFDIC-style receivership for state-qualified issuers; federal issuers wound down via OCC
EU MiCAMonthly reserve attestation + quarterly disclosures + annual audit; white paper + ongoing reporting to the NCAAMLD6 + Transfer-of-Funds Regulation (Travel Rule) + EU sanctionsBank Recovery & Resolution Directive (BRRD) extended to significant EMT issuers
Japan EPIMonthly reserve disclosure (trust type via the Trust Association); annual audited financialsAct on Prevention of Transfer of Criminal Proceeds (AML) + Travel Rule via industry association + METI sanctionsTrust Business Act segregation ensures holder priority; banking-law resolution for bank type
HKMAMonthly reserve attestation by an independent auditor; quarterly public disclosureAMLO + JFIU + UN/HKMA sanctions screening; Travel Rule applied to issuer flowsHK Financial Institutions (Resolution) Ordinance applies; issuer-specific recovery plan mandatory
MAS SCSDaily reserve disclosure + monthly third-party attestation; annual auditPS Act AML + MAS Notice PSN02 + Travel Rule + UN/MAS sanctionsIssuer-specific recovery and resolution plan; MAS receivership powers

MAS is uniquely strict on daily disclosure. All five poles converged on monthly third-party attestation as the floor and Travel Rule + sanctions screening as required AML controls. Resolution regimes remain fragmented — only the EU and HK have explicitly extended bank-resolution machinery to SC issuers.

Matrix G · Permitted use, distribution, interoperability

PoleRetail useWholesale / institutionalEmbedded wallet distribution
US GENIUSYes, with no per-transaction ceiling; intended for paymentsYes, including DvP and tokenized depositsPermitted; OCC supervised
EU MiCAYes for EMT; significant EMT (>€5B) faces extra transaction-volume capsYes; ART is used mostly for tokenized fundsPermitted, but only via an EU-licensed wallet operator
Japan EPIYes; funds-transfer type capped at roughly ¥1M per transaction (partial caps by sub-license)Trust type designed for B2B large-ticket settlementPermitted; CASP / wallet provider needs separate EPI distributor registration
HKMAYes; KYC required at the on-ramp; no per-transaction cap statedYes; the primary use case is cross-border trade with Mainland anchor banksPermitted; HKMA-licensed only
MAS SCSYes; subject to DPT-distributor KYC if offered through a DPT venueYesPermitted; MAS-licensed DPT distributor required

Cross-regime interoperability and arbitrage windows

  1. MRA bridges as the only legal passport. Without a bilateral MRA, a token compliant under one regime is not automatically compliant in another. The US-Japan MRA (signed 2026-02) allows a US-qualified USDC to be distributed in Japan via SBI VC Trade as an EPI; there is still no equivalent passport between the US and EU or the US and HK. See three-circles-stablecoin-mra-framework.
  2. Reserve arbitrage. An SG-licensed SCS issuer must hold 3-month sovereign paper rated AA−; a US-qualified issuer can hold 93-day Treasuries and demand deposits. The net-interest-margin differential is approximately 30–60 bps depending on the rate cycle, pushing high-volume USD issuers toward the US charter.
  3. Capital arbitrage. A floor of S$1M in Singapore versus HK$25M in Hong Kong versus an effective ~$50M in an OCC charter versus €350K for an EU EMI — a four-order-of-magnitude spread. Smaller issuers gravitate toward SG/EU, scale issuers toward US/HK.
  4. Cross-border treatment gap. US §502 and Japan’s distributor model are open; the EU/HK/SG are closed. Until equivalence treaties arrive, the same token will need separate legal wrappers in each closed market.
  5. Algorithmic exclusion is universal. UST-style designs have no compliant path anywhere — confirmed across all five poles. This pushes algorithmic SC capacity into unregulated chains and reinforces the bifurcation laid out in genius-act-501-denylist-mandate.
  6. Wallet / VASP distribution. Every regime requires the distributor (exchange, wallet, on-ramp) to hold its own license separate from the issuer license — making the exchanges surface the rate-limiting step for SC adoption in each jurisdiction.

Sources