US Treasury and Fed withdraw $250 crypto transfer reporting proposal

What happened

FinCEN and the Federal Reserve Board have withdrawn a 2020 proposal that would have lowered the cross-border transfer recordkeeping and Travel Rule threshold from $3,000 to $250. The joint withdrawal notice was filed Nov. 6 and takes effect Nov. 9, Crypto.news and Bitcoin.com News reported. The existing $3,000 threshold remains for qualifying transfers by banks and other covered financial institutions, including crypto businesses subject to FinCEN's money transmission rules.

The October 2020 proposal sought to amend Bank Secrecy Act requirements for transfers beginning or ending outside the United States. Covered banks and nonbank financial institutions would have collected and retained identifying information for international transfers of $250 or more, with specified information accompanying payments between institutions. Domestic transfers would have kept the $3,000 threshold. The plan also would have explicitly covered convertible virtual currencies and digital assets with legal tender characteristics.

The agencies said they would take no further action on the proposal. They cited the more than five years since publication, changes in the digital asset industry and regulatory environment, and the value of further public feedback before similar amendments. They said no final rule would be issued without another comment opportunity.

Why it matters

The withdrawal leaves current compliance obligations unchanged. The Travel Rule still applies to regulated crypto service providers, and the $3,000 threshold continues to govern qualifying cross-border transfers. The proposal would have required exchanges and custodians to handle customer information for many more smaller international payments. Privacy and compliance-cost objections dominated the response, with nearly 3,000 comments raising concerns about burdens on smaller institutions and retention of more personal data. Gavin Zavatone of the DeFi Education Fund and Defend DeFi welcomed the decision, arguing that Americans should not have to hand over names, addresses and account details simply for moving value on a blockchain. The Blockchain Association had warned in a November 2020 comment letter about substantial costs for smaller crypto businesses. Other jurisdictions have continued to pursue stricter requirements, so the global picture remains uneven.

What the data shows

Key figures include the existing $3,000 threshold, the proposed $250 level, the October 2020 publication date, nearly 3,000 public comments, the Nov. 6 withdrawal notice and the Nov. 9 effective date. More than five years passed between proposal and withdrawal. The agencies also pointed to the GENIUS Act, enacted July 18, 2025, which established federal rules for payment stablecoin issuers, as part of the changed legal landscape. The reports noted separate withdrawals last month of proposals involving self-hosted wallets and cryptocurrency mixing; the wallet plan would have added recordkeeping above $3,000 and reporting above $10,000 for certain transactions. Those proceedings concerned different obligations.

Background

The proposal was meant to update Bank Secrecy Act recordkeeping and Travel Rule requirements and remove uncertainty about how convertible virtual currencies and legal-tender digital assets fit the framework. It drew nearly 3,000 comments from banks, money services businesses, trade associations, individuals and others; Bitcoin.com News reported that a significant majority were substantially similar form letters. Many opposed the lower threshold, citing costs for smaller institutions, privacy risks from retaining more personal information, possible disruption to overseas remittances and the case for a higher threshold to reflect inflation since 1995. Views differed on the crypto-specific language: crypto service providers and related trade groups generally opposed it, while some banks, money services businesses and associations supported it. Opponents cited technological limits, the lack of an international messaging standard for crypto transactions and possible constraints on innovation. Some commenters raised Fourth Amendment concerns, and others noted that some potentially illicit transfers below $3,000 were already reported through Suspicious Activity Reports.

What is still unclear

The withdrawal does not settle what rules, if any, the agencies may propose next. FinCEN and the Federal Reserve left open the possibility of separate rulemaking, particularly in light of stablecoin legislation and changes in federal digital asset policy, but they did not commit to a timetable or threshold. It is also unclear how future rules might treat crypto-specific recordkeeping and Travel Rule issues or interact with the GENIUS Act framework. Any future proposal would face another public comment period.

What to watch

Watch for any new FinCEN or Federal Reserve notice, comment request or guidance on cross-border transfer reporting. Also watch whether the agencies revisit crypto-specific language in the Bank Secrecy Act framework and how GENIUS Act implementation affects future anti-money laundering rulemaking. Industry groups and privacy advocates are likely to keep pressing their concerns, while other jurisdictions may continue to set different Travel Rule thresholds.

Questions readers ask