As stablecoins continue to integrate into the mainstream financial ecosystem, regulators across the globe are introducing new rules to address their rapid growth and potential risks. Among the most debated of these measures are regulatory caps on stablecoin holdings and transaction volumes. These limits are designed to safeguard monetary sovereignty, reduce systemic risk, and ensure that stablecoins do not undermine traditional currencies or financial stability. However, such caps also raise important questions about innovation, user access, and the future trajectory of digital assets.
How Do Stablecoin Holding Limits Work?
Regulatory authorities have adopted a range of approaches to stablecoin holding limits regulation. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR), which took effect on June 30,2024, imposes some of the world’s strictest caps. Under MiCAR, stablecoins used as a means of exchange are limited to 1 million transactions or €200 million ($215 million) in daily volume. The goal is clear: prevent large-scale adoption from threatening the euro’s stability or the EU’s monetary policy autonomy. For more on MiCAR’s impact and industry response, see this detailed analysis from CoinDesk: EU’s Restrictive Stablecoin Rules Take Effect.
The United States has taken a different path with its recently enacted GENIUS Act. Rather than setting explicit caps on user holdings or transaction volumes, the law focuses on issuer requirements: only banks and select financial institutions can issue fiat-backed stablecoins if they maintain strict 1: 1 reserve backing and pass regular audits. Notably, yield-bearing stablecoins are prohibited under this regime – a move aimed at preventing unregulated investment products from masquerading as payment tools.
The UK Approach: Individual Caps Under Scrutiny
The Bank of England has proposed some of the most granular individual holding limits globally. Its consultation paper suggests capping individual stablecoin holdings between £10,000 and £20,000, while businesses could be limited to £10 million. These proposals have sparked intense debate within the UK crypto sector; many argue such strict thresholds could drive innovation offshore and hinder adoption by legitimate users. Industry experts have voiced concerns that these rules might make the UK less attractive compared to more flexible jurisdictions.
Key Differences in Stablecoin Regulatory Caps: EU, US, and UK
-
EU MiCAR: Strict Daily Transaction CapsThe European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) limits stablecoins used for payments to 1 million transactions or €200 million ($215 million) in value per day. These caps are designed to protect the euro’s stability and prevent stablecoins from undermining monetary sovereignty.
-
US GENIUS Act: No Explicit Caps, But Tight Issuer RestrictionsThe GENIUS Act of 2025 does not impose explicit caps on stablecoin holdings or transactions. Instead, it restricts issuer activities to issuing, redeeming, and managing reserves, requires 1:1 reserve backing, and prohibits yield-bearing stablecoins. Nonbank issuers with less than $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins can opt for state regulation.
-
UK Bank of England Proposals: Individual and Business Holding LimitsThe Bank of England has proposed individual stablecoin holding caps of £10,000–£20,000 and business caps of £10 million. These proposals aim to manage financial stability risks but have faced industry criticism for potentially stifling innovation and competitiveness.
Why Are Regulators Imposing Caps?
The rationale for these individual stablecoin cap rules is rooted in broader financial stability concerns. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) warns that unchecked growth in privately issued stablecoins could erode central bank control over monetary policy and facilitate capital flight – especially in emerging markets (BIS Delivers Stark Stablecoin Warning). By limiting how much any one entity can hold or transact in stablecoins daily, regulators hope to contain systemic risks without completely stifling innovation.
Yet these measures come with trade-offs. Critics worry that caps could fragment liquidity pools across regions or platforms and slow down real-world adoption – potentially pushing users toward less regulated alternatives where oversight is weaker.
About the Author
