Lots of big questions are on the line for community banking this month. Who gets to issue digital money? Will fintechs need to pay for access to customer data? How much can banks ask customers about suspicious activity? And as fintechs move closer to owning the banking infrastructure themselves, how will that change the bank-fintech relationship?
This month's news offers a few early answers. Regulators are moving ahead on stablecoin rules and open banking, the FDIC is proposing new standards for bank-fintech partnerships, and federal agencies are rethinking how they supervise banks. Meanwhile, fintechs are taking a more direct role in banking, while new guidance gives institutions more clarity around investigating suspicious activity. Here's what community banks and credit unions need to know.
Stablecoin regulation took a real step forward in August. The Treasury Department put out a proposed rule that answers a basic but important question: what actually counts as issuing a stablecoin "in the United States"? That answer matters because starting January 18, 2027, when the GENIUS Act is set to take effect, issuing a payment stablecoin in the U.S. without the right federal or state license generally won't be allowed. The proposed rule spells out the specific activities that would trigger that licensing requirement, along with when a stablecoin can be considered "offered or sold" to U.S. customers, giving issuers a clearer read on whether the rules apply to them before the deadline hits.
Meanwhile, a group of major international financial institutions announced plans to establish a new company focused on issuing a stablecoin. The founding institutions include Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, TD Bank and Wells Fargo, along with several other financial institutions. The new company plans to develop a stablecoin designed for use in payments and settlement, pending regulatory approval.
However, the debate over how banks should use digital money is also moving beyond stablecoins. Speaking at a Federal Reserve symposium, Bank for International Settlements General Manager Pablo Hernández de Cos argued that tokenized deposits could offer banks a more effective way to use the technology while keeping funds within the banking system. His comments come as financial institutions increasingly explore tokenized deposits to support the clearing and settlement of tokenized commercial bank money.
The stablecoin rulebook is starting to take shape, but stablecoins aren't the only digital-money model banks are pursuing. Tokenized deposits offer another path, one that could bring some of the speed and programmability associated with blockchain technology while keeping customer funds on bank balance sheets.
For community banks and credit unions, the immediate question isn't necessarily whether to issue a stablecoin or tokenize deposits. It's how these new forms of digital money could change the competitive landscape around payments, cross-border transactions and deposits. The technology, rules and business models are still taking shape, but this is increasingly becoming a banking conversation, not just a crypto one.
Read more about tokenized deposits vs stablecoins:
The FDIC is considering a new approach to bank-fintech partnerships. The agency has proposed creating an independent standard-setting body that would develop and certify standards for banks and fintech companies. The goal is to establish clearer, more consistent expectations for how these partnerships operate and how participating institutions demonstrate that they meet those standards.
The proposal follows several high-profile fintech failures that exposed problems with recordkeeping, reconciliation, oversight and the handling of customer funds. The FDIC has already stepped up its scrutiny of bank-fintech relationships. The proposed standard-setting body would add a new industry framework, giving banks and fintech partners a way to follow and potentially demonstrate compliance with certified standards for managing those relationships.
Bank-fintech partnerships aren't going away. But the expectations around them are changing. For community institutions, that could mean more formal standards around areas such as customer account records, reconciliation, third-party oversight and the division of responsibilities between banks and their technology partners. Even institutions that don't currently have a fintech program could eventually see these standards influence broader expectations around vendor management.
The details are still being worked out, but the direction is clear: regulators want stronger guardrails around bank-fintech partnerships. For institutions considering new technology relationships, the question is increasingly not just what a fintech can help the bank do, but whether the partnership has the controls, transparency and accountability to withstand regulatory scrutiny.
The CFPB is moving forward with a revised open banking rule, sending its proposal to the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. The agency has not yet released the proposal publicly, but reports indicate it could take a different approach to one of the biggest sticking points in the original rule: who pays for access to customer financial data.
Under the reported framework, banks and other financial institutions could charge third parties for data access using a tiered pricing model. Basic access to certain customer data could be available at no charge, while fintechs and other companies seeking higher volumes of data or more sophisticated access could pay fees. That would mark a significant change from the CFPB's original rule, which generally prohibited banks from charging for data access. Banking groups challenged that rule in court, and the CFPB's revised approach could set the stage for another legal battle.
Open banking can sound like a technology issue, but for community banks, it's also a question of who gets access to your customers' data, and who pays for making that access possible. A tiered pricing model could give banks more flexibility to recover at least some of the costs associated with building and maintaining data-sharing infrastructure. At the same time, the model could create another set of questions: What qualifies as basic access? When can an institution charge? How will fees be structured? And will community banks have the resources to build and manage the APIs needed to support different levels of access?
The proposal isn't public yet, and the details could still change. But the CFPB appears to be moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to data access. For community institutions, that could make a meaningful difference in how open banking affects both their technology budgets and relationships with fintech partners.
The CEO of Fingoal David Nohe says open banking can be a revenue opportunity. Read our profile:
Banks and credit unions can ask customers about suspicious activity without violating rules protecting the confidentiality of Suspicious Activity Reports, according to new guidance issued jointly by five federal financial regulators. The agencies clarified that institutions may communicate with customers to obtain information about suspicious transactions or activity, including asking about the purpose of a transaction or the source of funds.
The guidance also makes clear that institutions can discuss actions affecting an account, such as restrictions, rejected transactions or account closures, as long as they do not disclose that a SAR has been filed or reveal information that would expose the existence of a SAR. The clarification was issued jointly by the federal banking agencies, FinCEN and the NCUA.
Sometimes the best way to understand suspicious activity is to ask the customer about it. But banks have to walk a fine line: gather the information they need without tipping off the customer that a SAR may be under consideration or has been filed.
The new guidance provides clearer room for those conversations. Compliance and frontline teams can ask questions about unusual transactions, request additional information and explain account actions without automatically running afoul of SAR confidentiality rules. The clarification should help banks and credit unions distinguish between investigating suspicious activity and disclosing that a SAR exists, which are two very different things.
Our Co-founder and Chief AML Officer outlines the five pillars of an effective AML program:
Federal banking regulators are changing how they examine banks, and how banks can respond when they disagree with exam findings. The OCC and FDIC have finalized updates to their supervisory procedures that put more focus on issues that could create a material financial risk for an institution. In other words, not every process or documentation issue is expected to carry the same weight as a problem that could affect a bank’s safety and soundness.
The FDIC has also created a new independent appeals process. Banks will have another way to challenge certain material supervisory determinations they believe are incorrect or unwarranted. The changes come as regulators take a fresh look at long-standing examination practices and reconsider how broadly agencies should define the risks that require formal supervisory action.
For community banks, the changes could affect a familiar but consequential part of doing business: the examination process. A narrower focus on material financial risk could mean less emphasis on findings tied primarily to process or documentation issues, and more attention to problems that could directly affect a bank's safety and soundness. At the same time, the new appeals process could give institutions more options when they believe a supervisory finding is unwarranted.
The details will matter, particularly in how examiners apply the new standards in practice. But the broader shift is worth watching. How much this changes day-to-day exams will depend on how regulators apply the standards, but the process may become more of a two-way conversation.
Fintechs are taking more direct control of the banking infrastructure behind their businesses. Chime announced plans to acquire Stride Bank, its longtime banking partner, for $590 million in cash. If approved, Stride will become Chime Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Chime. The deal is expected to close in the first half of 2027.
Meanwhile, the OCC gave conditional approval to OpenReserve Bank, a proposed national bank built around an on-chain ledger. The bank plans to offer traditional banking alongside blockchain infrastructure, tokenized deposits and digital asset services. It also plans a stablecoin-issuing subsidiary and a banking-as-a-service platform.
These developments show two ways fintechs are moving closer to the bank itself: buying a bank or building one. Chime's deal is notable for banks that have built businesses around fintech partnerships. As fintechs mature, some may decide that owning a charter gives them greater control over products, technology, data and economics.
For community institutions, the broader takeaway is that the line between banks and fintechs continues to blur. As fintechs gain more control of the banking stack, community banks will need to think carefully about where partnerships can create value for both sides.
Last month, we covered a reciprocal deposits win, skinny accounts, and a CRA revamp. Missed it? Catch up here.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter, "The Exchange," to stay ahead of the curve and get original content and insights you won't find anywhere else!
Daisy Lin, Head of Marketing, Acceleron: 9/9/26, 8:24 AM
New rules are taking shape for digital money, open banking, SAR, fintech partnerships and more Lots of big questions are on the line for community...
Damon Magnuski, CEO, Acceleron: 9/2/26, 10:06 AM
57% of your SMB customers are already making payments abroad. Make sure it’s through you. Every community bank and credit union I talk to says the...
Daisy Lin, Head of Marketing, Acceleron: 8/26/26, 10:32 AM
What's reshaping correspondent banking: Swift goes live on blockchain, China nears a rival cross-border payments network, and a major ISO 20022...
Daisy Lin, Head of Marketing, Acceleron