US-WI · run world-payments-2026-07-05 v13.3.0
content: ai_generated 137 sources retrieved model claude-sonnet-5 ·

United States – Wisconsin

US-WI schema world-payments-v1 trajectory: not recorded

Last updated · 14 modules · 61 sourced findings · 137 sources in the cumulative register

14Modulesbaseline.modules[]
61Findingsmodules[].findings[]
45Tier-1 sourcesrun_metadata.t1_source_count
Confidence mix (sums to 14 rendered modules; click to filter)

Jurisdiction brief

Lead Signal

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 471, introduced 2025-09-29 by Rep. Neylon and eight cosponsors, would exempt node operation, crypto-to-crypto exchange with no fiat conversion, blockchain software development, and mining or staking from money-transmitter licensing under Chapter 217, and would bar state or local restriction of self-hosted wallets and crypto payment acceptance. Wisconsin currently regulates money transmission under Chapter 217, the Model Money Transmission Modernization Law, administered by the Department of Financial Institutions. The bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions, and as of the most recent reporting it remains pending with no confirmed floor vote or enactment. Wisconsin law does not currently define money to include virtual currencies, leaving self-custody of cryptocurrency in a regulatory gray zone as to DFI licensure, which is the gap AB471 is designed to close. If enacted, the bill would materially narrow the state's money-transmission licensing perimeter for digital-asset activity, aligning Wisconsin with a growing majority of states that already exempt node operation, non-fiat crypto exchange, and mining or staking from money-transmitter requirements.

14 of 14 modules
Signal
Density

Selections OR within a group, AND across groups. Press / to search.

#

Wisconsin regulates money transmission under Chapter 217 (Model Money Transmission Modernization Law), administered by DFI; AB471 (pending, referred to Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions) would carve digital-asset activities out of this licensing perimeter.

Movement — NEWAB471 pending crypto-licensing exemption identified.First-cycle capture for US-WI baseline.
Standing sub-brief294 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-05

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

Wisconsin administers money-transmission licensing through the Department of Financial Institutions under Chapter 217, the Model Money Transmission Modernization Law. Assembly Bill 471, introduced September 29 2025 by Representative Neylon with eight cosponsors, proposes to remove node operation, crypto-to-crypto exchange without fiat conversion, blockchain software development, and mining or staking from the Chapter 217 licensing perimeter, and would prohibit state or local restrictions on self-hosted wallets and crypto payment acceptance. The bill sits with the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions and has not, per the most recent reporting, reached a floor vote or been enacted. The underlying driver is a definitional gap: Wisconsin statute does not currently treat virtual currency as money, which leaves self-custodied cryptocurrency activity outside clear DFI licensure and is the gap AB471 is written to close. On the existing bonding side of the licensing regime, Wisconsin requires a surety bond of $10,000 for a licensee's first location plus $5,000 for each additional location, capped at $300,000 and administered by DFI, though this bonding figure derives from a secondary compliance-guide source not cross-checked against DFI's own fee schedule this cycle. Assessed against the broader state landscape, enactment of AB471 would materially narrow Wisconsin's money-transmission licensing perimeter for digital-asset activity and align the state with a growing majority of jurisdictions that already exempt node operation, non-fiat exchange, and mining or staking from money-transmitter requirements.

Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 · run wpm-2026-08-05

Licensing, Authorisation & Market Access

Wisconsin regulates money transmission under Chapter 217, the Model Money Transmission Modernization Law, administered by the Department of Financial Institutions. This is the standing regulatory-perimeter baseline against which this cycle's principal development, Assembly Bill 471, must be read. AB 471, introduced September 29, 2025 by Representative Neylon and eight cosponsors, would exempt node operation, crypto-to-crypto exchange without fiat conversion, blockchain software development, and mining and staking activity from money-transmitter licensing, and would bar state or local restriction of self-hosted wallet use and of crypto-payment acceptance. The definitional gap the bill targets is that Wisconsin law does not currently define money to include virtual currencies, leaving self-custody of cryptocurrency in a regulatory grey zone as to DFI licensure. As of the most recent reporting available this cycle, AB 471 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions, with no confirmed floor vote or enactment; this status update carries assessed rather than high confidence, reflecting reliance on secondary trade-press reporting for the referral status specifically. The existing licensing baseline for non-exempted money-transmission activity in Wisconsin includes a tiered surety-bond requirement of $10,000 for the first licensed location plus $5,000 per additional location, capped at $300,000, administered by DFI; this bonding figure itself rests on a Tier-4 secondary money-transmitter-license guide and was not cross-checked against DFI's own fee schedule this cycle. If enacted, AB 471 would align Wisconsin with a growing number of states that already exempt comparable digital-asset activities from money-transmitter licensing requirements, narrowing the population of crypto-native activity subject to Chapter 217's nonbank payment-institution and e-money-issuer regime.

Outlook

Watch for AB 471's committee disposition beyond its initial referral, which was not sourced further this cycle, and for whether Wisconsin's legislature moves the definitional fix ahead of or independent of federal stablecoin developments under the GENIUS Act. The bill's fate will determine whether Wisconsin's money-transmission perimeter for digital assets narrows through targeted state legislation or continues to rely on the current definitional ambiguity.

Sources and findings (6)
  1. T1https://dfi.wi.gov/Pages/FinancialServices/LicensedFinancial/MoneyTransmitter.aspx
  2. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/217.04
  3. T1https://dfi.wi.gov/Pages/FinancialServices/LicensedFinancial/MoneyTransmitterModernizationAct.aspx
  4. T1https://dfi.wi.gov/Pages/FinancialServices/LicensedFinancial/MoneyTransmitter.aspx
  5. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/217
  6. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-217/section-217-01/

#

Safeguarding rests on a surety bond/permissible-investments model, with new consumer conduct obligations on virtual currency kiosk operators via 2025 Act 226.

#

Federal GENIUS Act stablecoin framework (Public Law 119-27) applies as a national overlay to Wisconsin-serving payment stablecoin issuers; final rules due July 2026, enforcement January 2027.

Movement — NEWGENIUS Act federal overlay identified.First-cycle capture for US-WI baseline.
Standing sub-brief217 words · last cycle wpm-2026-08-05

Stablecoins & Digital Money

The GENIUS Act, enacted as Public Law 119-27 and signed July 18 2025, establishes payment stablecoins as a form of digital money that may only be issued by Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers, a national framework that applies to Wisconsin-serving issuers regardless of the state's own licensing regime. Final implementing rules are due July 18 2026, and the enforcement phase begins January 2027, at which point full compliance obligations attach. A US Treasury notice of proposed rulemaking issued April 14 2026 works through how state-chartered stablecoin issuers interlock with the federal GENIUS Act regime, a question that bears directly on the state-federal licensing interface for any Wisconsin-chartered or Wisconsin-licensed entity engaged in stablecoin issuance. Taken together, Wisconsin-serving payment-stablecoin issuers face a layered compliance stack once enforcement begins in January 2027: new federal bank-style reserve, attestation, and audit obligations stack on top of any pre-existing state money-transmitter licensing that already applies to their activities.

Periodic update · new data 2026-08-11 · run wpm-2026-08-05

Stablecoins & Digital Money

The GENIUS Act, Public Law 119-27, signed July 18, 2025, is the federal overlay most directly relevant to Wisconsin-serving digital-money activity this cycle. The Act classifies payment stablecoins as digital money restricted to Permitted Payment Stablecoin Issuers, with final implementing rules targeted for July 18, 2026 and enforcement beginning January 2027; it applies nationally, including to any issuer serving Wisconsin customers, independent of Wisconsin's own money-transmitter statute. The framework applies to both bank and non-bank issuers, a notable departure from state licensing regimes that typically draw a sharper line between bank and non-bank payment institutions and e-money issuers. A Treasury notice of proposed rulemaking dated April 14, 2026 addresses how state-chartered stablecoin issuers fit within this federal framework, a question directly relevant to the state-federal licensing interface for any Wisconsin-chartered or -licensed entity; this specific reading is assessed at low confidence, resting on a Tier-4 secondary source with no primary NPRM text retrieved this cycle. Wisconsin-serving payment-stablecoin issuers therefore face a layered compliance stack once GENIUS Act enforcement begins in January 2027, combining new federal bank-style reserve, attestation, and audit obligations with whatever state money-transmitter licensing status applies to their Wisconsin operations, an interaction the state-federal NPRM appears intended to clarify but has not yet done so definitively.

Outlook

Watch for the GENIUS Act's final implementing rules around the July 2026 target date and their treatment of state-chartered issuers, and for any primary Treasury text on the state-federal licensing interplay raised in the April 2026 NPRM, neither of which was available in primary form this cycle.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/proposals/sb975/1/_21
  2. T1https://dfi.wi.gov/Pages/FinancialServices/LicensedFinancial/MoneyTransmitter.aspx
  3. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/related/acts/226.pdf
  4. T2https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1903492

#

Operational resilience rests on the state Data Breach Notification Law and Insurance Data Security Law for OCI licensees, with no dedicated state operational-resilience regime.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/134/98
  2. T2https://www.constangy.com/data-privacy-us-wi
  3. T1https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/chapter-217/section-217-01/
  4. T3https://pivitstrategy.com/wisconsin-cybersecurity-laws-you-should-know-2026/

#

Wisconsin imposes no state-level restriction on credit card surcharging, deferring to the federal 4% cap and card-network rulebooks.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T3https://www.getnickel.com/surcharge-laws/wisconsin
  2. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb213
  3. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/proposaltext/2021/REG/AB587
  4. T1https://dhub.deloitte.com/Newsletters/Tax/2025/STM/250509_13.html
  5. T3https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/wisconsin-credit-card-surcharge-laws/

#

Corridor exposure runs through FedNow participation by WI banks/credit unions and ch.217's cross-border money-transmission coverage.

Open gap — wpm-int-2No Wisconsin-specific bilateral trade/remittance corridor volume data was located; corridor exposure is inferred from FedNow participation and statutory cross-border coverage only.US state-level corridor/remittance-flow granularity is a known bias-correction target and remains thin here.
No sub-brief written this cycleThe module carries open gaps but no narrative analysis was authored this cycle. Flagged for the next research pass.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T2https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednow
  2. T2https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/10/5-fednow-service-developments-you-may-have-missed/
  3. T1https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/217/01

#

Fiserv, headquartered in Milwaukee since 2024, dominates Wisconsin's payments industry structure alongside a dense community-bank/credit-union sector.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T2https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240304550078/en
  2. T1https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0000798354/000119312526270336/d153349dex991.htm
  3. T3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiserv
  4. T2https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednow
  5. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/judge-combines-fiserv-lawsuits/819924/

Milwaukee-based Fiserv is the epicentre of Wisconsin payments litigation: consolidated securities class actions and a Clover merchant-fee class action.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (5)
  1. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/judge-combines-fiserv-lawsuits/819924/
  2. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiserv-shareholders-sue-again/805388/
  3. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiserv-sued-over-alleged-lax-security/810831/
  4. T3https://lawfold.com/fiserv-class-action-lawsuit/
  5. T3https://paymentexpert.com/2025/11/14/fiserv-sued-financial-guidance/

#

Merchant acquiring is anchored by Fiserv/Clover under a permissive surcharge regime, facing litigation over fee transparency.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiserv-sued-over-alleged-lax-security/810831/
  2. T3https://lawfold.com/fiserv-class-action-lawsuit/
  3. T3https://merchantcostconsulting.com/lower-credit-card-processing-fees/wisconsin-credit-card-surcharge-laws/
  4. T3https://pivitstrategy.com/wisconsin-cybersecurity-laws-you-should-know-2026/

#

Product innovation centres on FedNow-enabled instant payments adoption and Fiserv's embedded-finance/agentic-commerce roadmap.

Absence reason not determinableNo sub-brief exists and the JID records no gap or review marker explaining why. The renderer will not invent a reason.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T2https://www.nerdwallet.com/banking/learn/banks-that-use-fednow
  2. T2https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fiserv-completes-acquisition-of-payfare-302389984.html
  3. T2https://thepaypers.com/fintech/news/fiserv-completes-acquisition-of-payfare
  4. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiserv-sued-over-alleged-lax-security/810831/

#

Consumer protection is led by DATCP, complemented by the Wisconsin Consumer Act and new APP/virtual-currency-kiosk fraud protections enacted in 2026.

#

This module carries the Sentinel.gi payments-context AML/CFT position only; the proprietary feed was unreachable this pass, so only the federal BSA/SAR backdrop is captured.

Open gap — wpm-int-1Sentinel.gi proprietary payments-context AML/CFT feed was not reachable this collection pass; W11 carries only public federal BSA/SAR backdrop.Illicit-finance/private-intelligence signal for a US sub-national jurisdiction remains under-covered pending Sentinel-fed update.
No sub-brief written this cycleThe module carries open gaps but no narrative analysis was authored this cycle. Flagged for the next research pass.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (3)
  1. T1sentinel.https://www.fincen.gov/frequently-asked-questions-regarding-fincen-suspicious-activity-report-sar
  2. T1sentinel.https://www.fincen.gov/money-services-business-msb-suspicious-activity-reporting
  3. T1sentinel.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2023/related/acts/267/26

#

Correspondent banking pressures centre on cannabis/hemp-adjacent de-risking, with niche providers filling the service gap pending potential federal rescheduling.

Open gap — wpm-int-4The federal Executive Order directing marijuana rescheduling (Dec 18, 2025) has no disclosed implementation date, preventing regulatory_horizon extraction; correspondent-banking access implications for Wisconsin remain unresolved.no under-indexing note recorded
No sub-brief written this cycleThe module carries open gaps but no narrative analysis was authored this cycle. Flagged for the next research pass.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T2https://www.aba.com/advocacy/our-issues/cannabis
  2. T3https://www.herringbank.com/business-banking/cannabis-banking/hemp-banking-wisconsin/
  3. T3https://www.abrigo.com/blog/cannabis-banking-in-wisconsin-mitigating-reputation-risk-to-financial-institutions/
  4. T2https://www.icba.org/banking-cannabis-related-businesses

#

Trailing-12-month commercial activity in Wisconsin payments is dominated by Fiserv's CEO transition, workforce restructuring, and continued product/partnership activity.

Open gap — wpm-int-3Fiserv's Payfare acquisition (closed March 3, 2025) falls outside the trailing-12-month W13 commercial-event window for this baseline and was excluded from commercial_event scoring despite continued product relevance (captured instead under W9).no under-indexing note recorded
No sub-brief written this cycleThe module carries open gaps but no narrative analysis was authored this cycle. Flagged for the next research pass.

No periodic updates recorded against this sub-brief.

Sources and findings (4)
  1. T1https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0000798354/000119312526270336/d153349dex991.htm
  2. T2https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/judge-combines-fiserv-lawsuits/819924/
  3. T3https://www.paymentsdive.com/news/fiserv-sued-over-alleged-lax-security/810831/
  4. T2https://thepaypers.com/fintech/news/fiserv-completes-acquisition-of-payfare
No modules match.

Filters combine as OR inside a group and AND across groups.

Editorial metadata

Provenance only. Nothing below gates publication or affects the render.

Editorial metadata for United States – Wisconsin
FieldValue
trust.lawyer_review.statusnever_reviewed
trust.lawyer_review.reviewernot recorded
trust.content_sourceai_generated

Provenance and declared absence

Disclosure model: module cards load OPEN; standing positions render in full; sub-briefs and jurisdiction briefs load as a clamped teaser with an explicit “read full” control carrying the true word count; earlier updates stay collapsed behind a counted summary. No text is hidden without disclosing how much of it there is.

Sentinel-fed modules receive no special rendering treatment. sentinel_feed is an attribution chip only: it does not suppress content, does not generate an absence reason code, and does not exclude the module from any count, filter, search index or export on this page.

Family taxonomy is renderer-level presentation config, not a JID field. Colour is always duplicated in text and is never the sole carrier of meaning.

Suppressed by doctrine: derived risk score; per-module RAG traffic light; derived_scores = {"legal_accessibility": {"per_product": {"account_to_account": "regulated", "cards": "regulated"}}}.

Band honesty: uncertainty bands are computed against a frozen build clock of 2026-08-11. A year-precision row is never promoted into a tighter band.

Orphan deltas: 1 cycle_delta row(s) target non-module objects and are listed in the rail rather than attached to a card.

Envelope: baseline resolved at jurisdiction_json.baseline; 14 module(s), 61 finding(s), 133 source(s) in the cumulative register.