Fintech 2025

USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Donald J. Mosher, Kara A. Kuchar, Melissa G.R. Goldstein, Jessica Romano and Adam J. Barazani, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. As of January 2025, approximately half of the states have amended their laws to adopt some or all of the MTMA, and some trends and outliers have emerged. For example, almost all of these states have adopted the MTMA’s tangible net worth requirements and list of licensing exemptions, including the agent-of-the-payee exemption commonly relied upon by merchant payment processors. Notably, however, the application of state money transmission licensing require - ments to payroll processors remains in flux as there is wide divergence among the states that have adopted the MTMA on whether to express - ly include or exempt such activity. Following the presidential election, there also appears to be a nascent trend among some state legislators to add a remittance tax on money transfers and require money transmitters to ver - ify the immigration status of customers sending cross-border money transfers. For example, a Florida bill would expressly prohibit an unauthor - ised alien from sending a cross-border transfer. And, in late 2024, the US Virgin Islands already adopted a law imposing a 3% fee on remittances to foreign countries. While such proposals have grown from political sentiment to combat illegal immigrants, the industry is concerned about its ability to comply with identification requirements relating to a customer’s immigration status and the impact such legislation could have on poten - tially steering remittance transfers underground. Regulatory Risks and Opportunities in the Digital Assets Industry At the federal level, the evolving regulatory landscape for digital assets is marked by a shift toward rulemaking rather than enforcement-driv - en oversight and the following actions suggest a more industry-friendly stance under Trump 2.0. The newly established Crypto Task Force by the

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims to develop a clearer regulatory framework for digital assets, focusing on registration, dis - closure requirements, and interagency coordina - tion. The SEC’s repeal of Staff Accounting Bul - letin No 121 and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) Interpretive Letter 1183 also removes major barriers for banks offer - ing crypto custody or crypto-related services, potentially expanding institutional participation. The FDIC also signalled a desire to provide an avenue for depository institutions to engage in crypto-related activities while complying with safety and soundness principles and is actively reviewing and releasing prior communications, including “pause” letters sent to institutions, under the prior administration. Further, Trump’s executive order on digital assets promotes dol - lar-backed stablecoins, prohibits a central bank digital currency, and establishes a working group to evaluate regulatory gaps. Last, the Senate Banking Committee has passed stablecoin leg - islation that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for the issuance and regu - lation of payment stablecoins in the US, which the administration believes is likely to become law. State-level digital asset regulation remains high - ly fragmented. While more than half of the states have adopted some version of the MTMA, its application to digital assets varies significant - ly. Some states, like Texas and Vermont, have implemented additional requirements for sta - blecoin issuers and digital asset custodians. Others, such as California and New York, have opted for standalone licensing frameworks— California’s Digital Financial Assets Law, set to roll out in 2026, will impose licensing, disclosure, and capital requirements, while New York’s BitLi - cense remains one of the most stringent regula - tory regimes in the country.

991 CHAMBERS.COM