On March 23, 2026, in Delaware, located on the east coast of the United States, two state legislators simultaneously proposed two key bills concerning digital assets: the Delaware Payment Stablecoin Act (SB19) and the Delaware Banking Modernization Act (SB16), aimed respectively at restructuring the payment system and the banking regulatory framework. This was described by local legislators as "the first meaningful update to banking law in decades," while the state banking law, which has not seen major changes since 1981, is also being asked for the first time to directly address on-chain assets and new payment tools. This round of legislative amendments not only concerns specific provisions but also implies a larger suspense: before the federal legislative framework for digital assets solidifies, Delaware attempts to seize a regulatory advantage for the next round of crypto-financial order through state-level proactive regulation.

Why the Company Registration Sanctuary is Taking the Lead

In the history of American companies, Delaware has long played the role of a "company registration sanctuary": a large number of publicly traded companies and financial institutions choose to establish registered entities here, attracted by its flexible corporate laws, mature corporate court system, and business-friendly regulatory environment. Since the last century, Delaware has continuously innovated through corporate law and trust law to attract capital, assets, and legal business, positioning itself as a testing ground and model for corporate governance and financial regulations in the United States.

The SB19 and SB16 bills, promoted by two state legislators, are referred to by them as "the first meaningful update to banking law in decades," driven by both political motives and real economic pressure. On one hand, the lack of national-level legislation regarding digital assets and on-chain payments has provided a window for states to experiment and accumulate discourse power within the regulatory vacuum; on the other hand, the traditional company registration business is slowing down, while a new round of financial infrastructure reform is reshaping the methods of value storage and transfer in forms such as on-chain settlement and digital tokenization. If Delaware does not proactively embrace this, there is a risk that its existing advantages may be diluted.

Against this backdrop, this round of legislative amendments clearly carries the intention of "advantage spillover": legislators are trying to transform Delaware’s accumulated expertise in corporate law and trust systems into institutional support for digital assets and on-chain settlement, encouraging businesses and financial institutions accustomed to registering here to naturally regard Delaware as the preferred jurisdiction when entering on-chain activities. In other words, this is not merely a technical correction but a strategic layout attempting to extend the "corporate law high ground" into the "on-chain financial high ground."

Licensing for Payment Stablecoins: SB19 Tries to Shape New Thresholds

Among the two proposals, SB19 directly targets the issuers of payment tokens: the bill requires relevant issuers to obtain a license issued by the state of Delaware in order to operate legally within the state. This state-level licensing system is a reversal of the previous "issue first, regulate later" model and aims to shift compliance requirements for payment tools to the issuance stage, ensuring that market participants possess certain risk management and compliance capabilities. By setting access thresholds, Delaware attempts to address core concerns surrounding token stability, redemption capacity, and issuer governance.

Notably, SB19 does not create new definitions but adopts the definitions of relevant tokens from the federal Stablecoin Act (GENIUS Act), proactively aligning with this still-developing federal legislative framework. This design reduces friction costs in future state-federal rule alignment while also signaling to the market: Delaware aims to be a "dress rehearsal" before federal rules are implemented, rather than completely severing ties with federal standards.

In terms of specific regulatory intentions, introducing the licensing system means that the qualifications of issuers, reserve arrangements, governance structures, and information disclosures will all come under the scrutiny of state regulators. The reasonable market expectation is that the transparency of reserve assets will be emphasized, redemption risks will need to be presented more clearly, and consumer rights protection will become an important dimension of review and daily regulation. However, there is currently no public information providing any quantitative requirements regarding reserve ratios, capital standards, etc. The lack of specific numbers coupled with an explicit prohibition on speculation indicates that the direction—improving transparency and protecting holders—is clear, while specific thresholds remain to be filled by subsequent legislation and regulatory details.

The Bank Law That Hasn't Changed in Forty Years is Prized Open by Digital Assets

In contrast to SB19 aimed at non-bank issuers, SB16 directly extends its reach into the traditional banking system: this proposal, named the Delaware Banking Modernization Act, is seen as the most significant structural update to state banking law since 1981. According to existing information, SB16 officially introduces definitions related to digital assets into state banking law for the first time, bringing regulatory language that has previously been confined to the context of "ledgers, deposits, and loans" into a new realm that includes on-chain accounting and tokenized assets, a symbolic significance far beyond its literal length.

Historically, Delaware banking law has remained largely unchanged since 1981, and has performed only minor adjustments in response to internet banking, electronic payments, and even the global financial crisis, without undergoing a systemic overhaul. Now, with digital assets directly written into this "old code," it demonstrates a tension in which the old financial framework must yield to new technology: as an increasing number of value storage and transfer behaviors migrate on-chain, if banks continue to adhere only to the old context of "accounts and balances," they will lose the ability to explain and engage with these new businesses on a regulatory basis.

SB16 has not detailed in public materials which specific digital asset services banks can provide or where the boundaries of asset custody lie, nor has it disclosed precise parameters for capital and risk management. However, the directional signal of "entering digital asset services under compliance" is already quite clear: in the future, some banks in Delaware will likely be able to explore business expansion in areas such as token custody, clearing cooperation, and on-chain settlement interfaces within the bounds of compliance permissions. It is important to emphasize that, due to the current lack of details regarding the extent of business scope expansion, any interpretation of SB16 as "banks will fully dive into the crypto market" clearly exceeds the existing information's scope of support.

State and Federal Race: The Regulatory Puzzle is Taking Shape

If the definition alignment between SB19 and the federal Stablecoin Act (GENIUS Act) represents a form of "soft collaboration," then the potential friction point between them arises from overlapping regulatory levels and enforcement standards: once a future federal version is passed, how the national-level rules will align with Delaware's existing or potentially passed state rules, who holds the final interpretative authority and enforcement priority, could all become new arenas of contention. By legislating first, Delaware is effectively vying for the position of "first interpreter."

Even more ambitiously, the research brief mentions that the proposed Money Transmission and Virtual Currency Modernization Act is expected to become the third piece of the Delaware regulatory puzzle. This means that beyond SB19 handling payment token issuance and SB16 reshaping the banking framework, Delaware also hopes to legislate specifically targeting money transmission and broader digital asset activities, filling in the "gray areas" of licensing, permits, and business boundaries. The combination of the three constitutes the embryonic form of a complete regulatory closed-loop, covering issuance, banking, and transmission and trading nodes.

From a competitive perspective, whether state-level regulatory innovations provide a replicable, iterable template for future federal rules or are intentionally seizing the discourse power in rulemaking remains undecided. On one hand, adopting the definitions from the GENIUS Act indicates that Delaware prefers not to disconnect from federal rules and wishes to be seen as a "pilot zone"; on the other hand, if the complete trilogy of regulatory pieces is first implemented in Delaware, it will also objectively provide a ready reference model for federal legislation and allow the "corporate law high ground" to naturally become a "cryptocurrency rule model." Between the state and federal levels, this is both cooperation and a subtle institutional race.

From Corporate Law High Ground to Cryptocurrency Rule Model

From SB19 to SB16, the common signal released by both bills is very clear: Delaware, which once attracted countless businesses to register and financial institutions to land through corporate law and banking regulation, is attempting to extend this legal high ground to the fields of crypto finance and on-chain assets. The issuance of payment tokens, the updating of the banking framework, and the potential future regulation of money transmission are being pieced together into a comprehensive picture that encompasses issuers, traditional financial institutions, and on-chain business nodes.

For the industry, this process will have mid- to long-term effects on the site selection and compliance decisions of three types of participants: for issuers, whether to obtain a state-level license in Delaware will no longer just be a "marketing tag," but could relate to the convenience of collaborating with banks, entering traditional payment systems, and adapting to future federal rules; for banks, exploring compliant operations related to on-chain assets in a jurisdiction like Delaware may become an important dimension of new business development; for on-chain enterprises concerning settlement, custody, and compliance services, whether to choose to register here and establish partnerships with local institutions will directly affect their design of compliance pathways in the U.S. market.

At the same time, uncertainties cannot be overlooked: SB19 and SB16 are still undergoing review by the Senate committee, and whether the bills will pass as originally written or whether key provisions will be altered during negotiations remains uncertain; specific regulatory details—from licensing application requirements to risk management mandates—have yet to be disclosed, let alone verifiable ratios and values. For market participants, the current actions of Delaware can be regarded as an important signal of a new round of regulatory narrative, but until the bills are formally passed and implementation details are announced, any direct interpretation of them as "positive/negative news" for a particular type of token or specific business scenario would be an over-interpretation.

Between the traditional corporate law high ground and the emerging on-chain financial order, Delaware has already taken a key step, but whether this step will be seen as a model by the federal and other states, or become just one link in numerous local experiments, will take time and more legislative interactions to provide an answer.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。