Use case / stablecoins
Regulatory simulation for stablecoin-enabled financial products
Stablecoin-enabled products move faster than the certainty around them. The commercial case is usually clear; the regulatory consequence of one design choice versus another is not.
Reglator lets institutions test those design choices as decisions — settlement model, custody model, who holds what, where the customer sits — and see the potential regulatory delta of each before anything ships.
Who this is for
Institutions that carry the decision
Regulatory simulation is used by the people who own the decision, not only the function that documents it.
Payments companies adding stablecoin settlement
Wallet and custody providers
Banks evaluating tokenised deposit or settlement models
Infrastructure providers serving regulated institutions
Decisions tested
The questions this answers
Should settlement be on-chain, off-chain or hybrid?
Each configuration can produce a different regulatory position for the same commercial outcome.
Who should hold the asset?
Control and location of assets can shift both requirements and operating model.
Should the customer hold a balance or a claim?
The character of what the customer holds is frequently decisive.
Which US states should launch first?
Sequencing changes the exposure profile, not just the timeline.
Regulatory delta
What tends to move
A Regulatory Delta is the potential change in the institution's regulatory position resulting from the decision. These are the areas that most often move here.
- Activity
- Whether the product introduces a new regulated activity.
- Custody
- Who controls assets, and what follows from that.
- Permissions
- Whether the current permission set still fits.
- State exposure
- Which states treat the configuration differently.
- Controls
- What the operating model must demonstrate.
- Judgement
- Where the answer is genuinely unsettled.
What this decision puts in motion
Add stablecoin settlement and customer wallet balances.
Product & engineering
Wallet design, custody model and settlement rails may need reworking if custody is treated differently.
Licensing
Activity perimeter and state-level scope can change with the custody and balance model.
External legal
Structuring and opinions are commissioned per configuration, not once.
Operating model
Reserve, custody, AML/BSA and reconciliation controls expand.
Capital
Reserve and regulatory capital expectations can follow the chosen structure.
These are capital and execution exposures created downstream of a regulated decision — not costs Reglator guarantees to remove. Simulation is intended to identify where regulatory consequences create capital, time and operating dependencies before execution.
Outputs
What you receive
- A side-by-side comparison of settlement and custody configurations
- Which design choices change the regulatory position and which are neutral
- A defensible record of the options considered before launch
- A clear statement of the open questions worth escalating
Decision library
Related decisions
Common questions
Questions this page answers
Can two stablecoin designs have different regulatory outcomes?
Frequently, yes. Two configurations that achieve the same commercial objective can produce materially different regulatory deltas. Comparing them is the point of simulation.
Does Reglator give an opinion on whether a design is permitted?
Reglator produces potential consequences, options and confidence — not legal conclusions. Where the position depends on judgement, the output says so.
Is this only relevant to crypto-native firms?
No. Most demand comes from licensed US institutions adding stablecoin capability to an existing regulated business.
Other use cases