No press conference, no public statement, no media briefing. The SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets quietly changed one number in an FAQ update last week: the net capital haircut for stablecoins dropped from 100% to 2%. For brokers, holding $100 million in USDC previously meant zero regulatory capital value; now $98 million can count toward net capital. Stablecoins are suddenly treated like money market funds.
Peirce: 'Cutting by Two Would Do'
Commissioner Hester Peirce wrote a blog post titled Cutting by Two Would Do to explain the rationale. Compliant payment stablecoins, backed 1:1 by short-term Treasuries and other high-quality liquid assets, audited regularly and redeemable at par at any time, carry risk profiles nearly identical to money market funds. Since the money market fund haircut is 2%, stablecoins had no reason to be penalized at 100%. She noted that some brokers had previously “voluntarily” proposed a 100% haircut, a result of reading the room under former Chair Gensler.
Larry Florio, deputy general counsel at Ethena Labs, said bluntly: “From Robinhood to Goldman Sachs, every broker’s business relies on these calculations. When stablecoins are counted as zero, no rational broker would hold them.” Under Gensler, the SEC filed 46 crypto enforcement actions in three years while also blocking the institutional on-ramp via net capital rules. Without the ability to hold crypto assets, brokers couldn’t offer custody, trading, or clearing services to institutional clients. One haircut number sealed the entire institutional market.
A $317 Billion Shadow
The timing reflects stablecoins’ sheer scale. As of January 2026, the global stablecoin market cap hit $317.9 billion, with Tether commanding 60.7%, USDC second, and the two combined representing 93%. Annual transfer volume surged from $27.6 trillion in 2024 to $46 trillion in 2025. In just 12 years, stablecoins evolved from a niche crypto tool into a transfer system rivaling the world’s largest payment networks.
But risks remain: the change was not enacted through formal rulemaking—no Federal Register notice, no public comment period, no commission vote. It is an FAQ update, classified as “informal staff guidance.” A future SEC chair could reverse it with another edit. Still, industry leaders say the clarity significantly reduces uncertainty, even if not carved in stone.