MAS proposes stablecoin rules under the Payment Services Act; comments due 16 October

Facts

On 1 September 2026 MAS published the consultation paper 'Proposed Amendments to the Payment Services Act 2019 for Stablecoins Regulation' (source: MAS consultation paper; date and title confirmed via a Baker McKenzie briefing). The comment period ends on 16 October 2026.

The proposal creates three categories: (i) 'MAS-regulated stablecoins' issued by domestic or foreign issuers under MAS supervision; (ii) 'designated systemic stablecoins' that MAS designates as systemically important; and (iii) 'MAS-recognised stablecoins' issued overseas and recognised by MAS subject to conditions. Coins that fall into none of these continue to be treated as digital payment tokens under the PSA (source: Baker McKenzie, September 2026).

Requirements cited include value stability, capital requirements, redemption at par, enhanced disclosure, safeguarding of customer funds before issuance, a ban on paying interest on MAS-regulated stablecoins, stress testing, and recovery and orderly exit plans (source: FinTech Global, 1 September 2026). The amount of capital required and the redemption deadline could not be identified in the material reviewed and are unverified.

Analysis

Over time, MAS published a stablecoin framework as policy in August 2023; this step moves it into statute under the PSA. Creating a category to recognise foreign-issued coins signals a design premised on cross-border circulation rather than domestic issuance alone. The interest ban appears aimed at preventing stablecoins from gathering funds as a deposit substitute. For consumer finance, the direct effect is therefore not on credit funding but on additional payment and remittance channels.

Implications

Counterpoints and uncertainties

This is a consultation, and categories and requirements may change in the final rules. Specific values such as capital amounts and redemption deadlines were not confirmed. The MAS primary document (consultation PDF) could not be read directly because of tool limits; title, date and deadline rely on a law firm's briefing.