His appointment reflected more than a personnel decision. Tether described Hines’s role as helping execute its U.S. market entry and build relationships with policymakers and industry participants. For companies considering a similar expansion, experienced U.S. leadership can be valuable, but it does not replace licenses, regulatory approvals, or a legally sound operating structure.
$USAT and $USDT are separate products
Although $USAT and $USDT share the Tether brand, they should not be treated as the same token with different marketing.
$USDT is the established global stablecoin issued by Tether International, S.A. de C.V. $USAT is a separate U.S.-focused token whose sole issuer is Anchorage Digital Bank, N.A., according to Anchorage’s governing disclosures. Those disclosures expressly state that Tether is not $USAT’s issuer, has no obligation to redeem or guarantee it, and licenses intellectual property associated with the product. They also describe $USAT as separate and distinct from $USDT.
The roles currently described by the participants are:
- Anchorage Digital Bank: Sole issuer of $USAT, with responsibility for issuing and redeeming tokens under its customer terms. Only approved Anchorage clients may mint or redeem directly with the bank. Other holders generally depend on exchanges or other secondary-market counterparties.
- Tether: Supplies technology and supports branding, strategy, and distribution. Tether’s announcements describe $USAT as part of its broader ecosystem, but Tether Operations does not issue or redeem the token.
- Cantor Fitzgerald: Identified by Tether as $USAT’s designated reserve custodian and preferred primary dealer. This places Cantor in an important reserve and market-infrastructure role, while leaving issuance with Anchorage.
The distinction affects holders directly. Anchorage’s terms do not promise every person holding $USAT a direct redemption relationship with the bank. A customer who acquired $USAT on an exchange may need to sell it through that exchange rather than present it to Anchorage for one-dollar redemption. Secondary-market price and liquidity therefore remain relevant even when the issuer maintains reserves intended to support par value.
Anchorage publishes monthly reserve attestations. Its report for August 31, 2026 stated that approximately 175.7 million redeemable $USAT tokens were outstanding against approximately $176.4 million in reserve assets. The same disclosure warns that $USAT is not legal tender, is not approved or guaranteed by the U.S. government, and does not receive FDIC or SIPC insurance.
‘Designed to comply’ is not the same as $GENIUS Act approval
Tether has promoted $USAT as federally regulated and designed to comply with the $GENIUS Act. There is a factual basis for part of that description: Anchorage is a federally chartered national trust bank supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Its federal charter, however, predates both $USAT and the $GENIUS Act.
The $GENIUS Act became law on July 18, 2025, but its principal issuer framework does not take effect until January 18, 2027. The OCC issued its principal final implementing rule on October 21, 2026. That rule addresses applications, reserves, redemption, capital, risk management, supervision, custody, and related requirements for issuers within the OCC’s jurisdiction.
As of October 27, the OCC has not opened the $GENIUS Act application process. The agency has said that it will do so after receiving the necessary information-collection approval and will announce the opening separately. The requirement to obtain prior OCC approval begins when the framework takes effect.
Accordingly, Anchorage’s present status as a national bank and $USAT’s operation under existing law should be distinguished from a future determination that Anchorage is approved to issue $USAT as a permitted payment stablecoin issuer under the $GENIUS Act. Public materials support saying that $USAT was structured with that framework in mind. They do not establish that the OCC has already granted a $GENIUS Act approval that the agency is not yet accepting applications to provide.
This distinction should also guide exchanges, wallets, and payment companies. A partner’s statement that a token is “compliant,” “regulated,” or “$GENIUS-ready” should prompt a request for the underlying charter, license, approval, legal opinion, or transition analysis. Marketing language should not substitute for regulatory due diligence.
Governance reporting and conflict controls
Hines’s transition has also attracted scrutiny. On October 15, 2026, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hines retained an ownership interest in consulting company Nxum while serving in the White House and that Nxum received payments connected to work for Tether. The Journal also reported that Hines discussed legislative developments with business partners while those partners communicated with Tether and that he supported a longer statutory transition period.
A representative for Nxum disputed the implication of a conflict, stating that Hines was unaware of the Tether engagement, was not involved in it, received no Tether-derived funds while in government, and did not arrange his later position at Tether. The Journal’s report did not identify a court or agency finding that Hines violated the law. The allegations and responses therefore should not be described as adjudicated facts.
The practical lesson extends beyond this particular dispute. Stablecoin businesses recruiting former officials should document recusals, continuing financial interests, communications with former agencies, and compliance with applicable post-government restrictions. The same discipline applies when affiliates, founders, or vendors have relationships that could affect regulatory advocacy or commercial decisions.
What other businesses can learn from the $USAT structure
Companies planning a U.S. stablecoin launch should answer several questions before announcing that a product is regulated:
- Who is the legal issuer? Identify the entity legally obligated to issue and redeem the token.
- Who controls reserves and redemption? Document the custodian, permitted assets, redemption eligibility, timing, fees, and emergency powers.
- What does each partner actually do? Branding, technology, distribution, reserve custody, and market-making are separate functions. Contracts and customer disclosures should use consistent descriptions.
- Which approvals exist today? Separate existing bank or money-transmission authority from future $GENIUS Act status.
- Who bears compliance and governance responsibility? Agreements should address AML, sanctions, transaction controls, regulatory reporting, examinations, data access, and conflicts of interest.
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, the correct analysis begins with activities and legal entities, rather than the product’s public-facing brand. The $USAT structure makes that principle concrete.
Frequently asked questions
Is $USAT currently a $GENIUS Act-approved stablecoin?
No such approval has been publicly established. $USAT is presently issued by an OCC-chartered national trust bank and was designed around the $GENIUS Act framework. The OCC’s implementing rule takes effect on January 18, 2027, and the agency had not yet opened its application process as of October 27, 2026.
Can any $USAT holder redeem directly with Anchorage?
No. Anchorage’s published terms limit direct issuance and redemption to approved clients. Other holders may need to use an exchange or another secondary-market counterparty.
Is $USDT covered by $USAT’s U.S. structure?
No. $USDT and $USAT have different issuers and legal arrangements. $USAT’s relationship with Anchorage does not, by itself, confer any regulatory status on $USDT.
Businesses evaluating a U.S. stablecoin launch, listing, distribution arrangement, or institutional holding should examine the legal issuer and each service provider separately. Contact Kelman PLLC to discuss how the $GENIUS Act and related regulatory requirements may affect a proposed structure.
Attorney Advertising. This article provides general information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship