The proposal is about accounts, not every address
A stablecoin can move between blockchain addresses without its issuer opening a conventional account for every holder. That technical fact sits at the center of the U.S. customer-identification proposal published in June 2026.
The joint proposal would require permitted payment stablecoin issuers to maintain customer identification programs comparable to those used by banks and several other regulated financial institutions. It does not say that every person who receives a token automatically becomes a direct customer of the issuer.
The Federal Register text is explicit about the boundary. The proposed definitions extend the program to direct relationships and exclude activity in which the only interaction with the issuer is through its smart contract. Mere ownership or control of a payment stablecoin would not, by itself, establish an account.
The proposal draws its central boundary around direct relationships with the issuer, not around every place the token can travel.
This is a proposed rule, not a final rule. The agencies requested comment on June 18, 2026, and the notice appeared in the Federal Register on June 22. Its importance lies in showing the framework the agencies are considering, not in creating an ID check that already applies to every transfer.
Primary-market activity opens the issuer door
The proposal divides the ecosystem into primary and secondary markets. Primary-market activity directly involves the permitted issuer. Examples include issuing, converting, redeeming, repurchasing, burning, or reissuing payment stablecoins, along with associated services such as custody.
A business that sends dollars to an issuer and receives newly minted stablecoins has entered a direct relationship. A user who redeems tokens with the issuer for dollars may do the same. If the issuer maintains an account for that person or business, the proposed identification program applies to the account-opening process.
Secondary-market activity does not directly involve the issuer as a party beyond operation of the token’s smart contract. The proposal names examples such as buying from an intermediary, paying a vendor from a self-hosted wallet, exchanging through a digital-asset platform, or making a person-to-person transfer.
That does not make secondary activity unregulated. An exchange or custodian can have its own anti-money-laundering, sanctions, identity, reporting, and recordkeeping duties. The narrower point is that those duties do not turn every address into an account at the stablecoin issuer under this particular proposal.
What the identification program would collect
A customer identification program is designed to let the institution form a reasonable belief that it knows the customer’s true identity. The proposed rule requires written procedures appropriate to the issuer’s size, business, accounts, methods of opening them, and risk.
For an individual, the minimum identifying information would include name, date of birth, address, and identification number. A legal entity would provide formation and other identifying information. Verification could rely on documents, non-documentary methods such as reliable databases, or a combination.
A customer identification program collects specified information and uses documentary or non-documentary methods to verify identity.
The issuer would also need procedures for cases in which identity cannot be verified, records of the information and methods used, customer notice, and checks against government lists designated under the rule. Under specified safeguards, the issuer could rely on another regulated financial institution to perform some procedures.
These are account-opening controls. They are not a claim that a blockchain knows the legal identity behind every private key.
Three examples show the boundary
First, imagine a trading firm with a direct issuer account. It wires dollars, asks the issuer to mint tokens, and later redeems them. The firm is using the issuer’s primary-market services and would be inside the proposed customer-identification boundary.
Second, imagine a retail customer buying those tokens on an exchange and sending them to a friend’s self-custody wallet. The exchange may identify its customer under its own rules. The transfer alone would not make both wallet holders customers of the issuer under the proposed CIP definition.
Third, imagine the retail holder later seeking direct redemption from the issuer. Moving through that issuer door changes the relationship. The issuer may need to open or maintain an account and complete the required identity process.
The practical effect depends on whether a person uses an intermediary, transfers from self-custody, or opens a direct issuer relationship.
Why users who never redeem directly should still care
Issuer compliance can influence which stablecoins banks, exchanges, and payment apps support. It can affect the ease of institutional minting and redemption, the reliability of records, and the willingness of traditional payment companies to connect to the system.
It also creates costs and risks. Identity checks add forms, waiting, rejected applications, and databases containing sensitive personal documents. Large issuers may absorb compliance staffing and vendor costs more easily than small ones, potentially concentrating the market.
Privacy concerns are not imaginary simply because the current proposal excludes mere token ownership. Other anti-money-laundering and sanctions rules may evolve, and intermediaries already collect substantial information. The policy dispute is about where controls should sit when tokens can circulate beyond the issuer’s direct customer base.
To read the proposal, identify the relationship first: a direct issuer account, an exchange account, or a transfer between self-custody wallets. The three can involve different institutions and different checks. The account definition discussed here belongs to a proposed issuer rule; a final rule and any separate intermediary obligations must be examined on their own terms.
Visual guide
How the pieces fit together
