Stablecoin regulation is no longer only about licensing and anti-money laundering. On October 12, 2026, Cointelegraph reported on a new Tempo report arguing that a proposed US accounting change could let companies classify qualifying stablecoin holdings as cash equivalents on their balance sheets. The change centers on an August 2026 Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposal, and it matters for corporate treasury because it touches liquidity ratios, loan covenants, and payments infrastructure — not just compliance paperwork.
Table of Contents
- What just happened: FASB proposes stablecoins as cash equivalents
- Why this shift matters for corporate finance teams right now
- Stablecoin regulation: the two-layer problem
- What ‘direct redemption rights’ really mean
- From rule change to real operations
- What to watch next in stablecoin regulation
- Key Takeaways
What just happened: FASB proposes stablecoins as cash equivalents
A new report from Stripe-backed blockchain Tempo, covered by Bitget and Cointelegraph on October 12–13, 2026, argues that a proposed US accounting change could remove a major barrier to corporate stablecoin adoption by allowing qualifying tokens to be classified as cash equivalents on company balance sheets. The report examines an Accounting Standards Update the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) proposed in August that could make stablecoins more practical for corporate treasury operations.
The timing is significant. Corporate treasury teams have spent much of 2026 caught between two realities: stablecoins are increasingly used for payments and settlement, but they often cannot be reported as cash on a balance sheet without accounting gymnastics. That mismatch affects working-capital optics and covenant compliance.
The FASB proposal would enhance cash-equivalents disclosures and clarify how certain digital assets — including stablecoins — should be evaluated. In practice, the debate is about one decision rule: a stablecoin can qualify as a cash equivalent only if the holder has direct redemption rights with the issuer.
Under the FASB proposal, companies would need direct redemption rights with stablecoin issuers to classify the tokens as cash equivalents — buying through an exchange would not automatically qualify. That is narrower than it sounds. The proposed change would create a clear path for stablecoins that meet the test, while leaving weaker arrangements outside.
Tempo’s report points to a live example. Coinbase classified USDC as cash equivalents in its 2025 annual report, supported by its redemption arrangement with Circle. That is the exact distinction the proposal would formalize.
| Scenario | Current accounting treatment | Under the August 2026 FASB proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Stablecoins bought and left on an exchange | Generally not counted as cash equivalents | Still may not qualify without direct issuer redemption rights |
| Stablecoins held with direct redemption rights from the issuer | Case-by-case; not clearly standardized under US GAAP | Could qualify as cash equivalents if the criteria are met |
| USDC classification in Coinbase’s 2025 annual report | Cash equivalent via Circle redemption arrangement | Cited by Tempo as the model for the proposal’s direct-redemption test |
Why this shift matters for corporate finance teams right now
The FASB proposal would let companies classify certain stablecoins as cash equivalents instead of reporting them in ways that do not reflect their near-cash liquidity. For corporate treasury, that changes how stablecoins appear in financial statements and how banks view them during credit reviews.
A company that settles payroll, vendor payments, or cross-border invoices in stablecoins currently may show a smaller cash position than its Fiat-only peers, even if the stablecoin is redeemable 1:1 for dollars. Under the proposed rule, a stablecoin held with direct redemption rights could sit inside cash and cash equivalents, letting finance teams consolidate working capital across Fiat and regulated stablecoin rails.
If qualifying stablecoin holdings move into cash equivalents, a company’s current ratio, quick ratio, and cash-based debt-service metrics can improve. For businesses subject to loan covenants tied to minimum cash or liquidity, the classification can be the difference between compliance and a technical breach. That does not mean every stablecoin balance suddenly solves a covenant problem. But for a business already using stablecoins operationally, the accounting change would align financial statements with economic substance.
The largest unlock is consolidation. Today, a finance team may run separate workflows: a bank account for payroll, an FX provider for cross-border payments, a crypto exchange for stablecoin settlements, and a custody wallet for holding. Under a cash-equivalent classification, a single stablecoin balance could serve short-term holdings, payment settlement, and cash reserve reporting — provided the infrastructure supports it. As explored in our Crypto Treasury Management Must Evolve for Tokenized Future analysis, that consolidation is exactly what modern treasury platforms are being built to deliver.
Stablecoin regulation: the two-layer problem
Most coverage of stablecoin regulation conflates two separate layers. Finance leads need to separate them.
Layer one: prudential and AML regulation
Stablecoin issuers in the US currently operate under state money transmitter licensing. The proposed GENIUS Act would create a federal prudential regime for large stablecoin issuers, but as of October 13, 2026, it has not been enacted. Overseas, the MiCA stablecoin framework has been fully applicable since 2025 in the EU, with reserve and redemption standards for issuers. These are prudential and anti-money-laundering rules aimed at issuers — they do not determine how a corporate holder records the asset on its books.
Layer two: accounting classification
The August 2026 FASB proposal sits in a different layer: US GAAP accounting. It does not license anyone or change anti-money-laundering obligations. It changes whether a corporate holder can treat a stablecoin as a cash equivalent for financial reporting. Both layers are true simultaneously. A company that wants to use stablecoins in treasury needs to track issuer compliance under money-transmitter or future federal law, and the accounting classification that determines whether the holding strengthens the balance sheet. This dual-layer dynamic is reshaping Stablecoin Yield Shakes Crypto Treasury Management strategies across the sector.
What ‘direct redemption rights’ really mean
Direct redemption rights mean the company can redeem the stablecoin directly with the issuer for Fiat at par, rather than relying on a third-party exchange. If a business buys USDC through an exchange and leaves the balance there, its claim is against the exchange, not Circle. If the exchange fails, the company may not have a direct path back to dollars.
The proposed path requires three things:
- Direct redemption rights with the issuer. The company must be able to redeem the token for dollars with the issuer or an authorized direct channel.
- Clear custody and legal ownership. The stablecoins must be held where the company, not an exchange’s omnibus pool, is the legal claimant.
- Documentation for auditors. Records showing the direct redemption arrangement, par redeemability, and control environment around custody.
Auditors do not simply accept a token’s label. An exchange statement showing “USDC balance” is not the same as a redemption agreement with Circle. For a company that needs audited financials, the custody arrangement and legal relationship determine whether the asset sits as cash equivalent or elsewhere on the balance sheet. This same custody logic underpins the institutional moves we covered in Standard Chartered’s RLUSD Custody and Crypto Banking.
From rule change to real operations
A company needs a unified platform that can hold both Fiat and stablecoin balances, execute payments in multiple currencies, support on-chain and off-chain settlement, and maintain audit-ready records. The practical minimum is:
- A segregated global account structure
- Multi-currency Fiat rails and stablecoin rails in the same interface
- On-ramp and off-ramp conversions that do not fragment treasury
- Custody that separates company assets from exchange omnibus risk
- Role-based permissions and automated payment workflows
OneSafe exemplifies this model, providing segregated global accounts, ACH and wire rails, corporate cards, FX, and crypto on/off-ramps. The company reported more than $800 million in transaction volume from over 1,000 businesses across 30+ countries — evidence that the operational layer the proposal assumes already exists.
DAO-specific workflows
DAOs and startups can prepare by documenting stablecoin custody and redemption relationships now. Many DAOs hold treasury stablecoins in multi-sig wallets or exchange accounts. Under the proposed rule, an exchange-held balance without direct redemption rights would not automatically qualify. The preparatory steps are: move long-term stablecoin treasury into custody that preserves direct redemption rights, use role-based permissions so signers and payment workflows are audit-ready, and avoid commingling operational stablecoins with speculative token positions. These treasury structures increasingly intersect with lending, as detailed in our Crypto Payroll Now Collateralizes Bank Loans: Analysis.
What to watch next in stablecoin regulation
The FASB has requested public comment on the proposal. The October 13, 2026 Tempo report does not specify a final adoption date, so the timeline remains open. Deloitte’s initial read and Mayer Brown’s analysis treat the disclosure and classification changes as consequential.
The GENIUS Act and the FASB test address different actors but interact. A stablecoin that meets a future federal issuer regime may have an easier time satisfying auditors on direct redemption rights. Until then, the practical path is to choose issuers with transparent reserve backing and document direct redemption arrangements.
The FASB proposal is a US GAAP development. IFRS preparers and companies under MiCA-aligned regimes will not automatically get the same treatment, but the logic — that a par-redeemable stablecoin with direct issuer redemption is economically equivalent to cash — could influence interpretation globally. For multinational treasury teams, the near-term task is to track both MiCA’s issuer-level requirements and the US accounting proposal separately. The same regulatory fragmentation drives the compliance landscape we examined in DeFi Compliance: What the USDCV-MetaMask Listing Changes.
Key Takeaways
- The August 2026 FASB proposal would let companies classify stablecoins as cash equivalents, but only with direct redemption rights from the issuer — exchange balances alone are unlikely to qualify.
- The October 2026 Tempo report highlights Coinbase’s 2025 USDC classification as the working model: a direct redemption arrangement with Circle supported cash-equivalent treatment.
- For corporate treasury, the change can improve liquidity ratios and loan-covenant optics, but only if custody, redemption, and reporting infrastructure support the classification.
- The US accounting layer is separate from state MTLs and the proposed GENIUS Act; companies need to track both, but the FASB proposal determines balance-sheet treatment.
- DAOs and startups can prepare now by consolidating stablecoin treasury into custody with explicit ownership controls and documenting redemption rights.
To put that infrastructure in place now, open a OneSafe account and run your stablecoin treasury through a single platform built for Fiat and crypto.
