Ripple is advancing its influence within the regulatory landscape by taking a proactive approach toward addressing the pressing need for clearer regulations in the cryptocurrency market. On May 22, 2026, the company formally reached out to the SEC Crypto Task Force with a follow-up letter highlighting five crucial regulatory gaps. Ripple asserts that these gaps are hampering the adoption of stablecoins and the development of tokenized assets within the United States.
Central to Ripple’s proposals is the request for a 0% capital haircut on qualifying payment stablecoins. This represents a significant reduction from the current 2% haircut mandated under existing broker-dealer net capital rules. By making this proposal, Ripple is positioning itself as a technically engaged participant in the SEC’s ongoing crypto rulemaking efforts.
Ripple argues that the existing 2% haircut, outlined in Rule 15c3-1, is disproportionately punitive for stablecoins utilized as collateral in broker-dealer financing transactions. To substantiate its claims, the company performed a volatility analysis examining the daily price movements of its own RLUSD stablecoin, as well as USDC and three-month constant maturity U.S. Treasuries over a five-year period. The analysis produced striking results:
- RLUSD exhibited a standard deviation of 0.0418% daily
- USDC showed a standard deviation of 0.0156% daily
- Three-month U.S. Treasuries had a standard deviation of 0.00496% daily
Ripple concluded that the current 2% haircut effectively translates to a move of 47.85 standard deviations for RLUSD—an event with an astronomically low probability of occurring in practice. This assessment concludes that the 2% haircut bears little relevance to the actual risks associated with stablecoin prices.
For Ripple, a pivotal aspect of its proposal is that where there is a direct mint-burn relationship between the broker-dealer and the stablecoin issuer, the haircut should be 0%. Under this scenario, market pricing becomes irrelevant when a firm can redeem stablecoins directly at par.
Ripple’s letter details five distinct regulatory areas needing attention:
-
Rule 15c3-1 (Net Capital): It calls for recognizing qualifying stablecoins as permissible assets with a 0% haircut under mint-burn conditions.
-
Rule 15c3-3 (Customer Protection): The establishment of a “Qualified Payment Stablecoin” category that allows these stablecoins to be considered cash equivalents in reserve calculations.
-
Non-security Crypto Assets: The request extends the existing “readily marketable” treatment of Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) to any non-security asset that meets a similar standard, effectively advocating for equivalent broker-dealer treatment for Ripple’s XRP.
-
On-chain Registry Primacy: Ripple suggests designating the on-chain registry as the sole authoritative legal record for tokenized securities directly issued, thereby eliminating confusion surrounding dual-registry systems.
-
OCC-Chartered Trust Banks: The company seeks clarification that federally supervised digital asset custodians should be categorized as “banks” under Rule 15c3-3.
The implications of Ripple’s proposals are far-reaching. They hold significant commercial importance for developers and infrastructure builders involved in stablecoin frameworks under the GENIUS Act, as the current 2% haircut artificially inflates costs associated with stablecoin-based financing. A transition to a 0% haircut could, therefore, enhance capital efficiency and facilitate faster institutional adoption.
Moreover, for XRP holders, the request for non-security equivalence is particularly noteworthy. Ripple is striving for regulatory treatment of XRP that aligns with that of Bitcoin and Ethereum in broker-dealer capital calculations. Achieving this change could potentially dismantle the remaining compliance barriers that hinder institutional engagement with XRP. As a result, the forthcoming response from the SEC Crypto Task Force will be crucial in determining how far the current administration is willing to extend its crypto-friendly policies into the specifics of technical rulemaking.
