USDT live
Supply 112.4B +0.8%
Tron share 53.2%
ETH share 38.4%
TRC20 gas $0.95 -2.1%
ERC20 gas $4.20
24h volume $48.2B
English · 中文

Banks Push to Bring Stablecoin Secondary Markets Under AML Oversight — What Happens to Your U Card?

2026-06-12

In comments submitted to regulators, a major US banking trade group has proposed that stablecoin anti-money-laundering (AML) rules should not focus solely on issuance and redemption, but should also cover the secondary market — that is, wallet-to-wallet on-chain transfers, DEX swaps, and peer-to-peer movement outside exchanges. According to Decrypt’s report, these institutions argue that AML should “focus on higher-risk activity” while closing the regulatory gap in secondary markets. This position emerges against the backdrop of discussions on implementing details for US stablecoin legislation (the GENIUS Act track), aiming to hold stablecoins to the same level of AML constraints as traditional banks.

Editorial take: what this means for U card users

Bottom line first: this is a policy debate, not an immediately effective ban — cardholders don’t need to take any action right now. But the direction it points to is worth watching for anyone topping up a virtual card with USDT.

The core action of a U card is “on-chain USDT → issuer account → fiat card balance.” Today, compliance focus sits at both ends: KYC by the exchange/wallet you deposit from, and KYC by the issuer. Banks now want regulatory reach to extend into the on-chain movement in between — that is, which address your USDT came from, how many hops it took, and whether it ever touched a flagged mixing address.

The direct impact isn’t “card suspension,” but more granular deposit screening:

Within 7 days: nothing changes. Within 30 days: some issuers may add a “source of funds” field to their KYC questionnaires. Within 90 days: address risk scoring tools (like Chainalysis/TRM) may become more widespread on the issuer deposit side. See the deposit-compliance section in our MPCard review for more.

Historical comparison: how is this different from past rounds of regulation

This isn’t the first time stablecoin regulation has been “ratcheted up.” Three points of comparison are worth noting:

The similarity: regulation has always tightened progressively upstream, following the flow of money. The difference: this is the first time transfers between non-custodial wallets have been explicitly named as a risk surface — and that is precisely the path U card on-chain top-ups depend on most.

Compliance boundaries: where the gray areas are now

Three tiers to distinguish:

For the US, see our US compliance guide; if you use cards mainly in Asia-Pacific, our Hong Kong compliance guide and Singapore compliance guide also cover local treatment of secondary-market flows. It’s worth emphasizing: this is currently only at the industry-comment-submission stage, not yet an effective rule — AML details will depend on the final regulatory text.

Milestones worth watching next

  1. Whether FinCEN issues a draft guidance targeting stablecoin secondary markets — this is the key step for industry input to become actual rules. Watch FinCEN’s official announcements.
  2. The public comment period for GENIUS Act implementing rules — watch whether secondary market provisions get written into the implementing regulations.
  3. Changes to mainstream issuers’ KYC questionnaires — if your usual card suddenly adds a “source of funds/wallet explanation” question, that’s this trend reaching the product side.
  4. Coverage of on-chain risk scoring tools — how fast Chainalysis/TRM-type tools spread on the issuer deposit side is a leading indicator of actual tightening.

Editorial recommendations

In one line: what this news changes is the granularity of scrutiny on USDT movement, not your ability to spend with your card. Keeping funding sources traceable matters far more, practically, than worrying about whether your card will be suspended tomorrow.