UK Proposes Regulating Systemic Stablecoins
UK Proposes Regulating Systemic Stablecoins
On November 10, 2025, the BOE released the Proposal, setting out proposed rules for sterling-denominated systemic stablecoins issued by non-banks for use in UK payments. The BOE is seeking public feedback, and comments are due February 10, 2026.
Per the Proposal, systemic stablecoins are those widely used in UK payments whose disruption could threaten UK financial stability or significantly affect UK business or other interests.
A recognized payment system or service provider issuing such stablecoin is a “systemic stablecoin issuer” (SSI). Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) designates these issuers based on various indicia, such as: (1) the number and value of transactions, current and forecast; and (2) the nature of transactions, such as wholesale or retail.
While the Proposal is aimed at non-bank SSIs, it will be of interest to banks following the BOE’s November 2023 Dear CEO letter, which stated that deposit-takers that want to issue stablecoins to retail customers should do so only from separate, non-depository, and insolvency-remote entities.
In supervising SSIs, the BOE will adapt its existing financial market infrastructure (FMI) supervision framework to address stablecoin-specific risks.
The UK financial system has two main regulators: (1) the Prudential Regulatory Authority, a part of the BOE that regulates prudential requirements, and (2) the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates conduct for market integrity and consumer protection. The Proposal sets out regulations as follows:
Category | Regulatory Regime |
Systemic stablecoins for everyday payments | Joint BOE & FCA; home country authority, as applicable |
Stablecoins as a settlement asset – used in core wholesale financial markets by BOE-regulated FMIs | Currently prohibited; if permitted, joint BOE & FCA |
Stablecoins as a settlement asset – settlement in non-core wholesale financial markets by firms not BOE-regulated FMIs | FCA solo |
Non-systemic stablecoins for payments | FCA solo |
Other, such as using stablecoins for buying & selling cryptoassets | FCA solo |
The Proposal suggests specific requirements for stablecoins, summarized below:
Feature | Proposal |
Backing Assets |
|
Capital & Reserve Requirements |
|
Safeguarding of Backing Assets & Reserves |
|
Holding Limits |
|
Legal claim and redemption |
|
Location & Structure |
|
Interest |
|
The Proposal notes certain issues still to be determined by the BOE. For example, the BOE is weighing its approach to non-sterling-denominated coins that reach systemic use in the UK and suggested the BOE may defer to foreign regulatory authorities in those cases. The BOE mentioned its openness to the use of public, permissionless blockchains, so long as SSIs can demonstrate accountability, settlement finality, and operational resilience. SSIs will be considered accountable for their technology choices, the BOE cautioned.
The Proposal includes 23 questions for stakeholders, addressing backing asset calibration, capital structure, and cross-border coordination, among other topics.
In sharing comments and concerns with the BOE, it may be worth noting their priorities and objectives. In particular, the BOE is focused on maintaining financial stability, preserving trust in money, enabling interoperability, and supporting innovation. One area of focus for the BOE is on cross-border arrangements, including whether a home authority’s regulatory and supervisory framework delivers “broadly similar outcomes to the [BOE’s] regime for systemic stablecoins . . .” Similarly, cross-border arrangements remain the focus of U.S. regulators, as the recently enacted GENIUS Act seeks to ensure foreign stablecoin issuers are subject to “comparable” regulatory frameworks abroad, subject to the U.S. treasury secretary’s determination.
Market participants (both within and outside the UK) should begin assessing their readiness for regulation, compliance strategies, and technical pathways for interoperability under the Proposal, paying special attention to the differences between the Proposal and other regulatory frameworks and how those differences could impact a “broadly similar outcomes” or “comparability” analysis.



Practices
Industries + Issues
Regions