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
FollowingThe Bank for International Settlements questions the monetary nature of stablecoins and warns of stricter supervision in the United States and the United States.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) questions whether stablecoins can be a reliable alternative to traditional currencies. At the same time, global regulators are accelerating the introduction of new rules in this area, and stablecoins are under review again.
The Bank for International Settlements prefers tokenization of deposits
Pablo Hernandez Dekos, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, said that in the current financial system, stablecoins cannot provide reliable payment solutions. He insists that tokenized bank deposits are more suitable for connecting blockchain technology with traditional banking infrastructure. Decos added: "Tokened deposits will make it easier to leverage the benefits of tokenization while keeping the fundamentals of the monetary system unchanged." His comments come as policymakers in major economies work to design and implement regulatory frameworks around stablecoins. A recent research report released by the Financial Stability Institute (FSI), a subsidiary of the Bank for International Settlements, provides more details on these initiatives.
Stability coins face obstacles to growth
Decos acknowledged that stablecoins have some advantages, such as the possibility of reducing government borrowing costs. According to reports, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant also agreed. Analysts estimate that the stablecoin market may expand to US$3.7 trillion by 2030, and the passage of the GENIUS Act may accelerate this prospect. Proponents believe that the maturity of the stablecoin market may drive the private sector to increase its holdings of U.S. Treasuries. Despite rapid industry growth expectations, Decos warned that if deposits flow from banks to digital currencies, widespread adoption of stablecoins could push up borrowing costs for consumers, leading to higher financing costs for traditional banks. He said that if consumers transfer large amounts of savings into stablecoins, banks could lose key sources of funding, which in turn will lead to higher costs for businesses and households. Decos also pointed out that there is a lack of connectivity between stablecoin platforms and the government also faces challenges in anti-money laundering supervision. Another concern is that the growing international popularity of stablecoins pegged to the U.S. dollar could undermine the monetary independence of countries outside the United States.
Divergent global regulatory paths
A report released Thursday by the Financial Stability Institute compared the regulatory frameworks of stablecoins in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Singapore. The study found significant differences in the rules on the issuance of stablecoins and the scope of business licensed by relevant institutions. The United States and Singapore maintain relatively strict supervision of non-bank stablecoin issuers. In the United States, under the GENIUS Act, such issuers are prohibited from engaging in activities such as loans, pledges, proprietary trading, and holding crypto assets on behalf of others. In contrast, regulatory regimes in Hong Kong, the UK and the EU are more flexible. Companies in these regions can engage in additional activities after obtaining approval from relevant regulatory agencies. The Financial Stability Institute also notes that restrictions generally apply only to the entity issuing stablecoins themselves, rather than the entire enterprise group. This allows affiliates within the same corporate structure to engage in activities prohibited by regulated stablecoin subsidiaries. The findings reflect the growing focus of regulators on stablecoin issuers as governments seek to balance technological innovation with financial stability and consumer protection.
