Issuers cannot; whether partners can is now a case-by-case question. Section 4(a)(11) bars permitted and foreign issuers from paying “any form of interest or yield (whether in cash, tokens, or other consideration) solely in connection with the holding, use, or retention” of the coin. The OCC’s March proposal would have presumed that certain payments through affiliates and related third parties broke that ban. The final rule removed the presumption because, in the OCC’s words, payment stablecoins are “a nascent market” (91 FR 67000).
What the OCC said instead, from the same rule:
- Labels do not matter: “Interest does not stop being interest merely because it is given a different name.” It looks at economic substance.
- An agent paying holders on the issuer’s behalf can fall within the ban. There is no safe harbor for DeFi arrangements.
- Rewards programs that existed before the Act get no presumption that they comply.
- Payments for genuine (bona fide) services generally are not prohibited, absent facts to the contrary.
- Tokenized bank deposits are outside the ban, because the law’s definition of a payment stablecoin excludes deposits.
For a holder, the practical reading is that an exchange “reward” on a stablecoin balance is not prohibited outright, but it is the platform’s promise, not the issuer’s, and supervisors can still challenge it. Bank groups and crypto firms disagree about whether this leaves too much room; the rule, not either side’s view, is what applies. A balance that needs to earn interest belongs in an account built for that, such as a government money fund (see tokenized Treasury funds).