Writing/Essay summary/Money & Settlement

The Distributor’s Share

Substack · · Gaurav Singhal

Circle’s distribution and transaction costs equalled 61% of its reserve income in the second quarter of 2026. The OCC’s final stablecoin rule changes where analysis of that spending begins, without deciding where it ends.

Read the full essay on Substack

The argument

In August 2023 Circle and Coinbase signed a collaboration agreement that sets out what happens if its payments become unlawful. Under Section 3.3, if a change in law or a court order makes the distribution payments unlawful, the parties have three months to restructure them with a mediator; if they cannot, Coinbase may request transfer of the USDC trademarks and the payment provisions end. The agreement renewed on its existing terms in August 2026, for three years, with Section 3.3 intact.

The contract starts from reserve income. Each day’s interest and gains on the USDC reserve, less third-party fees and three deductions, are allocated to each party in proportion to the USDC balances attributed to it, and Coinbase takes half of the residual. A qualifying balance includes custodial products and managed wallets, and self-custody addresses that pass an attribution test, so the metric tracks a product relationship, however often the coins move. Circle’s filings put distribution and transaction costs at $410.4 million against $667.7 million of reserve income in the second quarter of 2026, a ratio of 61%, down from about 64% a year earlier.

On 21 October 2026 the OCC finalised its GENIUS Act rules. It removed a proposed presumption that payments routed through affiliates and related third parties breach the ban on issuer-paid yield, kept the ban itself, and defined the payment stablecoin holder as the beneficial owner. That definition separates a custodian from the person who benefits economically, so a payment to an intermediary for genuine distribution services can be analysed differently from interest paid to a holder. It is not a safe harbour: the OCC can still examine whether an intermediary passes an issuer-funded return through to holders. The rule takes effect on 18 January 2027.

Five constructed arrangements, tested against US, UK and Hong Kong rules, show that the presence of a distributor settles nothing in any of the three regimes. The decisive test is what the money pays for and who ultimately funds the return to the holder. Balance-linked pay also shapes incentives: a distributor paid by balance gains from coins that stay still, while one paid by transaction gains from coins that move.

Key points

  • Circle’s distribution and transaction costs were 61% of reserve income in Q2 2026, against about 64% a year earlier.
  • Distribution costs attributable to Coinbase were $324.6 million in Q2 2026 and $1.4 billion for 2025, up from $924.5 million in 2024.
  • The OCC’s beneficial-owner definition changes where the yield analysis starts; it does not decide where it ends.
  • The Federal Reserve and FDIC proposals still carry the presumption the OCC dropped, for the issuers they supervise.
  • Lower reserve yields (about 3.5% against 4.1% a year earlier) reduce the income available for distribution at any level of circulation.

What to watch

  • The first OCC determination on a distributor programme, and whether a fee to a custodian and a reward to its customers count as one payment or two.
  • Whether the Federal Reserve and FDIC finalise the presumption; the Federal Reserve’s comment period runs to 30 November 2026.
  • Any Section 3.3 notice under the Circle and Coinbase agreement.
  • New distributor agreements that name the services purchased and separate customer rewards from issuer payments.

Evidence and sources

Limits

  • The public documents do not establish a GENIUS Act violation, and they do not show that Coinbase’s customer rewards are issuer-funded yield.
  • The 61% ratio covers transaction costs and payments to every partner, not Coinbase alone. Issuer Retention rates are redacted in the public filing.
  • The five arrangements are constructed for comparison and do not describe any named firm’s practices.
  • Which issuer-specific rules apply to USDC depends on the issuing entity’s approved status and supervisor.