Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
FollowingPresident of the Bank for International Settlements: stablecoins lack the credibility of large-scale payments, and tokenized deposits are better.
President of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said that stablecoins do not have the credibility to handle large-scale payments and support tokenized deposits as a better path for digital currency. This statement directly targets one of the fastest-growing sectors in the cryptocurrency field, and the speaker is the highest person in charge of the agency that coordinates the actions of central banks around the world.
Why the President of the BIS questioned the use of stablecoins for large-scale payments
The core point is straightforward: According to remarks released by the Bank for International Settlements, stablecoins lack the credibility needed to transfer funds on a large scale. The criticism is directed at the payments sector, not cryptocurrency trading or speculation. The question raised by the president of the BIS is: Can privately issued tokens be trusted to settle payments across the economy? The reason why this statement is important is because of the identity of the speaker. When the BIS, known as the "central bank of central banks," questions a payment technology, regulators and monetary authorities usually take it seriously.
Why tokenized deposits are positioned as a better choice
The tokenized deposits favored by the president of BIS is a model of recording commercial bank deposits on digital ledgers while remaining within the regulated banking system. This distinction is at the heart of the entire argument. Tokenized deposits are claims on regulated banks, while stablecoins are claims on private issuers 'reserve assets-what the BIS points to is the credibility gap of the latter when used on a large scale. By elevating the status of tokenized deposits, the BIS is drawing a clear line: on one hand, digital currencies that exist within existing banking tracks, and on the other, digital currencies that are outside the banking system. For payment infrastructure, this is the dividing line to which official thinking has repeatedly returned.
Potential impact of BIS perspective on crypto payments and regulation
This stance emerged in the heated debate over who will dominate the future of payments. The BIS position directly contradicts the assertion that stablecoin issuers could disrupt card organization networks such as Visa and MasterCard. At the same time, traditional institutions are deepening their deployment of cryptocurrencies, such as Schwab and other companies expanding cryptocurrency trading services for mainstream investors. The BIS signal suggests that the official sector wants this expansion to take place through banking channels rather than bypassing them. This is a negative factor for the popularity of stablecoins. If the institutions coordinating global central banks view stablecoins as unsuitable for large-scale payments, the narrative pressure to require issuers to prove their worth will only increase. As a result, the battle over the trajectory of digital payments now has a clear dividing line: private stablecoins on one side and bank-backed tokenized deposits on the other. To which model will regulators ultimately entrust global funds?
