Nearly every major jurisdiction has built a prudentially-calibrated intermediate tier — the payment-institution / e-money / stored-value family — sitting between a U.S.-style money transmitter and a full deposit-taking bank. The U.S. has no federal analog: it occupies the middle only with product-specific (GENIUS stablecoin issuers) or state-only (Wyoming SPDI, NY BitLicense, trust charters) vehicles, never a general payments charter.
The Regulatory Spectrum
Each license plotted from pure payments conduct (left) to full prudential banking (right). The shaded middle is the contested intermediate band. Select any marker for its prudential profile and U.S. mapping.
Comparison Matrix
Filter and sort the full license inventory. Capital figures are statutory minimum initial capital unless noted; "safeguarding" denotes mandatory segregation of client funds in lieu of deposit insurance. Select any row for detail.
| Jurisdiction | License / Charter | Min. Capital | Client Funds | Lending | Deposits / DGS | Closest U.S. Analog |
|---|
The Regimes in Detail
Prudential standards and the U.S.-mapping read, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, with current rulemaking flagged.
Bespoke Stablecoin Regimes
Six regimes converge on substance — full reserve backing, par redemption, no interest, segregation/trust — but diverge sharply on structure. The U.S. GENIUS Act is the outlier: a federal/state overlay on existing machinery rather than a standalone license.
Key Takeaways
Six cross-jurisdictional patterns, with implications for the U.S. dual banking system and state-federal coordination.