What the document says“The primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, other relevant standard-setting organizations, and State bank and credit union regulators, shall assess and, if necessary, may, pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, and in a manner consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), prescribe standards”
The whole section. The assessment is a duty and the standards are a power that runs only if necessary. A standard would promote compatibility and interoperability with other permitted payment stablecoin issuers, and with the broader digital finance ecosystem, including accepted communications protocols and blockchains, permissioned or public. The consultation named takes in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, other relevant standard-setting organizations, and State bank and credit union regulators.
What the document actually says“The primary Federal payment stablecoin regulators, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, other relevant standard-setting organizations, and State bank and credit union regulators, shall assess and, if necessary, may, pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States Code, and in a manner consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113), prescribe standards”
The federal watchdogs must study how well these coins work with other systems. They may set standards if that is needed. They must first talk to a standards agency and to state watchdogs.
A standard lets one system work with another. Here it would cover coins from more than one maker. It would cover other digital money tools too.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.