The mechanics & stability of the peg
1. Asset‑backed stablecoin reserves vs. bank capital
Stablecoin issuers that are regulated as payment institutions or under specific regimes (like MiCA, BoE proposals, or U.S. stablecoin bills) are generally expected to hold high‑quality liquid assets (HQLA), often close to 1:1 reserves in cash, bank deposits, and short‑term government securities against tokens in circulation, with minimal maturity or credit transformation. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of EnglandIn contrast, commercial banks operate on a fractional‑reserve, risk‑transforming model, holding only a fraction of deposits as liquid reserves while using the rest for longer‑term loans and riskier assets, with capital requirements (e.g., Basel III) designed to absorb losses rather than fully “back” deposits. Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed – “Stablecoins and Financial Stability”; Bank of England – “Regulatory regime for systemic payment systems using stablecoins.” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of England
2. Systemic risks: algorithmic vs. fully reserved stablecoins
Algorithmic stablecoins rely on endogenous mechanisms (algorithms, seigniorage tokens, arbitrage incentives) with little or no exogenous collateral; they are vulnerable to reflexive death spirals when confidence breaks, as shown in analyses of algorithmic designs after the TerraUSD (UST) collapse. EBI EuropeBy contrast, fiat‑backed stablecoins with transparent, high‑quality reserves mainly face liquidity, custody, and asset‑valuation risk, which, while serious, are more similar to money‑market funds than to an uncollateralized reflexive system. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond EBI Europe
Source: European Banking Institute – “The Law of Algorithmic Stablecoins in the EU”; Richmond Fed – “Stablecoins and Financial Stability.” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond EBI Europe
3. Stablecoin runs and the U.S. T‑bill market
If a major fiat‑backed stablecoin faced a run, issuers might need to liquidate large holdings of T‑bills and short‑term paper quickly, amplifying volatility in money markets much like a run on prime money‑market funds. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of EnglandCentral banks and regulators (BoE, Fed) explicitly warn that systemic stablecoin arrangements could transmit stress to core funding markets if redemptions force fire‑sales of government securities. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed – “Stablecoins and Financial Stability”; Bank of England – regulatory regime discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of England
4. On‑chain attestations vs. traditional bank audits
On‑chain attestations provide near‑real‑time visibility of token issuance, transfers, and in some cases reserve wallet balances, but they usually do not verify the off‑chain quality or legal status of reserves held with custodians. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondTraditional audits and prudential supervision, by contrast, give periodic, legally enforceable verification of balance sheets and risk management, but with far less immediacy and transparency for end‑users. Bank of EnglandRegulators like the BoE and ECB suggest that systemic stablecoins will need both robust disclosure and formal prudential oversight, rather than relying solely on on‑chain transparency. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe”; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
5. De‑pegging and a DeFi liquidity crunch
Because many DeFi protocols treat top stablecoins as primary collateral, quote assets, and settlement units, a sudden de‑pegging would sharply reduce collateral values, trigger liquidations, and disrupt automated market makers, money markets, and lending pools. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondCentral banks and the ECB highlight that stablecoins are becoming critical plumbing for crypto markets, so a major failure could propagate a liquidity shock throughout DeFi, with feedback into traditional markets if large institutions are exposed. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
Impact on the global banking system
6. Disintermediation of deposits and bank lending capacity
If retail deposits migrate from banks into stablecoins, banks lose a cheap, stable funding base and must rely more on wholesale funding or shrink balance sheets. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of EnglandThis constrains their ability to create credit via loans to households and firms, potentially raising lending rates and tightening credit availability, especially for riskier borrowers and SMEs. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
7. 24/7 settlement pressure on banks
Stablecoins settle instantaneously and continuously, which raises user expectations for 24/7, low‑cost payments across borders and platforms. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central BankCentral banks and payment regulators (BoE, ECB) note that private digital money can press traditional systems toward real‑time, round‑the‑clock settlement to stay competitive, either through upgraded RTGS systems or integration with stablecoin‑like rails. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard”; Bank of England discussion paper; Richmond Fed. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
8. Concentration risk from stablecoin reserves at a few banks
MiCA and similar regimes may encourage or require large portions of stablecoin reserves to be held as deposits or short‑term assets at regulated banks, with the EU framework even specifying that at least 60% of reserves must be with EU credit institutions. CointelegraphIf a few large banks hold the bulk of these reserves, they become concentration nodes: distress at either the bank or the stablecoin can transmit quickly to the other, raising **systemic risk for those institutions and the broader system】. Cointelegraph Bank of England
Source: Cointelegraph summary of MiCA reserve rules; Bank of England discussion paper. Cointelegraph Bank of England
9. Replacing SWIFT for cross‑border settlements?
Stablecoins can technically offer faster, cheaper cross‑border transfers than SWIFT‑based correspondent banking, especially for smaller, retail‑like flows. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondBut central banks and regulators emphasize that large‑value interbank settlement also requires legal finality, credit risk controls, and compliance frameworks that current stablecoin infrastructures only partially provide, so a full replacement of SWIFT in the near term is unlikely; more plausible is a hybrid model where stablecoins complement rather than replace traditional rails. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
10. Non‑bank issuers and shadow banking
When non‑bank entities issue stablecoins backed by short‑term assets and offer money‑like claims without full banking regulation or deposit insurance, they resemble money‑market funds and other shadow banking vehicles that perform maturity and liquidity transformation outside traditional oversight. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondCentral banks warn that large stablecoins could recreate shadow banking risks—runs, fire‑sales, and opacity—unless brought under bank‑like or payment‑system regulations such as the U.S. GENIUS Act, MiCA, or BoE’s proposed regime. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed – discussion of GENIUS Act and financial stability; ECB blog; Bank of England paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Monetary policy & central banking
11. Stablecoins and the effectiveness of interest rate policy
If a substantial share of transactions and savings migrate into dollar‑ or euro‑pegged stablecoins issued outside the central bank’s direct balance sheet, the pass‑through from policy rates to lending rates, deposit rates, and broader financial conditions can weaken. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central BankThe ECB and other central banks warn that parallel digital monies may erode the central bank’s control over the monetary transmission mechanism, especially if stablecoins are widely used in credit and payment systems that are not fully integrated into regulated banking. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB blog – monetary sovereignty concerns; Richmond Fed; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
12. Dollarization of emerging markets via USD stablecoins
The ECB notes that stablecoins, dominated by the U.S. dollar, extend dollar usage globally and can bypass weak local banking systems, effectively accelerating digital dollarization in emerging markets. European Central BankThis undermines local monetary sovereignty: central banks in those countries lose seigniorage and the ability to stabilize their economies because residents increasingly hold and transact in USD‑linked tokens beyond domestic control. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
13. Velocity of money and inflation tracking
Stablecoins can circulate very quickly across platforms and borders, with fewer frictions than bank transfers, which could increase the observable speed of transactions in crypto‑native economies. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondBut because many stablecoin holdings function as near‑cash savings or collateral parked in DeFi, velocity may also fall during risk‑off periods; this makes traditional monetary aggregates and velocity measures harder to interpret for inflation analysis when a large share of “money” sits in tokenized form outside standard banking statistics. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
14. Pressure for CBDC development
Central banks explicitly cite the growth of private stablecoins as a key driver for exploring or accelerating CBDC projects, to maintain monetary sovereignty, payment system stability, and public trust in central bank money. European Central Bank Bank of EnglandThe ECB, for example, frames stablecoins as both a threat and a catalyst, arguing that a well‑designed digital euro could counterbalance private tokens and ensure continued effectiveness of monetary policy. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard”; Bank of England discussion paper. European Central Bank Bank of England
15. Stablecoins as crisis “safe havens” vs. traditional finance
During market stress, users may rush from volatile crypto assets and even from local bank deposits into USD‑pegged stablecoins perceived as digitally safe and globally liquid, especially when reserves are in T‑bills and cash. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central BankThis can siphon liquidity out of domestic banks and markets at precisely the worst time, while potentially concentrating risk in stablecoin issuers and their reserve assets, prompting central banks to consider backstops or stricter regulation for systemic tokens. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Global economic impact & inclusion
16. Savings from lower remittance fees
Traditional remittances often charge 5–7% of the principal, whereas blockchain‑based transfers (including stablecoin rails) can, in many corridors, reduce fees to well below that range, especially for large or on‑chain volumes. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondIf even a meaningful fraction of the hundreds of billions in annual remittance flows shifted to low‑fee stablecoin channels, the global economy could save several billions per year in transaction costs, freeing funds for consumption and investment, a point frequently stressed in central‑bank and policy discussions of digital payments. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog (discussion of payment efficiency). Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank
17. Banking the unbanked in high‑inflation or weak‑currency regions
Stablecoins can provide access to relatively stable foreign currencies and digital payment rails via smartphones, even where local banks are unreliable or inaccessible. European Central BankHowever, central banks caution that without local on‑/off‑ramps, identification, and consumer protection, stablecoins alone cannot deliver full financial inclusion and may exacerbate regulatory and monetary‑sovereignty challenges for fragile economies. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
18. USD‑pegged dominance and dollar reserve status
The ECB notes that stablecoins are overwhelmingly USD‑denominated, extending the international role of the dollar into digital asset markets and beyond. European Central BankThis dominance reinforces the U.S. dollar’s network effects as the global reserve and invoicing currency, potentially at the expense of other currencies unless alternative euro or multi‑currency stablecoins gain significant scale. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
19. Liquidity for SME trade finance
By enabling near‑instant settlement and programmable escrow, stablecoins can, in principle, lower the cost and complexity of cross‑border payments and supply‑chain finance for SMEs, who often face high fees and long delays via correspondent banking. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central BankRegulators emphasize that to become a reliable pillar of trade finance, stablecoin systems must meet robust standards on stability, governance, and AML/CFT, otherwise they may remain confined to niche or higher‑risk corridors. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
20. Smart contracts, tax collection, and fiscal leakage
Programmable payments using stablecoins can embed automatic tax withholding, invoicing, and reporting at the transaction layer, which governments view as a potential tool to reduce evasion and improve compliance if integrated with legal digital ID and reporting systems. European Central Bank Bank of EnglandBut central banks and regulators stress that such designs raise privacy, governance, and cross‑border coordination issues, meaning widespread automated tax collection via stablecoin smart contracts would require substantial legal and technical harmonization. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. European Central Bank Bank of England
Regulation, security & compliance
21. MiCA, GENIUS Act, and balancing innovation with stability
The EU’s MiCA and the U.S. GENIUS Act both aim to legitimize stablecoins while imposing guardrails: licensing issuers, setting reserve and disclosure requirements, and enhancing oversight for “significant” or systemic tokens. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond CointelegraphMiCA, for example, requires that at least 60% of reserve assets be held with EU banks, while the GENIUS Act is described by the Fed as the first comprehensive U.S. stablecoin framework—both trying to foster innovation but prevent runs and systemic contagion. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Cointelegraph
Source: Richmond Fed – GENIUS Act; Cointelegraph – MiCA reserve rules. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Cointelegraph
22. AML monitoring of cross‑border stablecoin flows
Regulators face the challenge that stablecoins are globally accessible, pseudonymous, and can move instantly across jurisdictions, making it hard to apply traditional, institution‑centric AML/CFT controls. European Central Bank Bank of EnglandThe ECB and BoE stress the need for harmonized rules, travel‑rule compliance, and enhanced analytics on public blockchains, combined with regulation of key intermediaries (exchanges, custodians, issuers) to monitor and report suspicious activity effectively. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. European Central Bank Bank of England
23. Lender‑of‑last‑resort access for systemic stablecoins
Central banks like the BoE discuss regulating systemic stablecoin payment systems in a way analogous to other critical payment infrastructures, potentially including access to central bank settlement accounts and liquidity facilities under strict conditions. Bank of EnglandGranting full “lender of last resort” status, however, raises moral‑hazard concerns and would likely only be considered if stablecoins become deeply intertwined with the core payments and credit system, and only for highly regulated issuers meeting bank‑like standards. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of England
Source: Bank of England – regulatory regime; Richmond Fed. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Bank of England
24. Pseudonymity and sanctions enforcement
Stablecoin transactions occur on public, pseudonymous addresses, which complicates straightforward identification of sanctioned entities and beneficial owners. European Central BankWhile advanced blockchain analytics can sometimes trace flows more transparently than cash, the ECB and other authorities warn that the cross‑border, decentralized nature of stablecoins can undermine unilateral sanctions regimes unless intermediaries and infrastructure providers enforce robust KYC and sanctions screening. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. European Central Bank Bank of England
25. Bankruptcy and redemption rights vs. bank deposits
MiCA and emerging stablecoin laws seek to clarify that reserves are segregated and redeemable for token holders, but actual bankruptcy treatment depends on issuer structure, local law, and how claims are framed (e.g., as debt, trust, or custodial assets). Cointelegraph Bank of EnglandTraditional bank deposits, by contrast, benefit from deposit insurance and clear resolution frameworks, whereas stablecoin holders may rank as unsecured creditors if legal protections are weak—one reason central banks urge robust legal ring‑fencing of reserves for systemic stablecoins. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Cointelegraph Bank of England
Source: Cointelegraph – MiCA implications; Bank of England paper; Richmond Fed. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Cointelegraph Bank of England
Future trends & interoperability
26. Prospects for multi‑currency / basket‑backed stablecoins
Given concerns about dollar dominance and monetary sovereignty, the ECB and others see room for euro‑ or multi‑currency stablecoins, potentially backed by a basket of fiat or central bank liabilities to reduce dependence on a single currency. European Central BankHowever, regulatory complexity, FX risk management, and user familiarity with USD mean that, at least for now, single‑currency USD stablecoins dominate, with multi‑currency models likely emerging gradually in specific use cases (e.g., trade finance, regional platforms). European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
27. Stablecoins on major payment platforms
Integration of stablecoins into large payment and fintech platforms (e.g., under regimes like GENIUS or MiCA) would let users access tokenized money through familiar interfaces, intensifying competition for banks and card networks on speed and cost. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central BankCentral banks note that as big techs and PSPs adopt stablecoins, the line between traditional fintech and crypto finance blurs, potentially shifting market power toward platforms that can orchestrate both fiat and tokenized payments at scale. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: Richmond Fed; ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond European Central Bank Bank of England
28. Stablecoins as unit of account for the global gig economy
For cross‑border gig workers and remote freelancers, denominating contracts in USD‑pegged stablecoins can reduce FX uncertainty and simplify settlement, making them a natural unit of account and medium of exchange for digital labor markets. European Central BankYet central banks warn that this further entrenches private, foreign‑currency dependence, complicating taxation, labor regulation, and macro‑management in countries where such income becomes significant. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
29. Environmental impact on PoS vs. traditional banking
Stablecoins running on Proof‑of‑Stake (PoS) chains consume far less energy per transaction than Proof‑of‑Work systems and, according to central‑bank commentary, generally have an environmental footprint comparable to or lower than many legacy payment infrastructures, particularly when accounting for data centers and card networks. European Central BankNonetheless, the overall impact depends on network design, scaling solutions, and data‑center energy mix, so regulators emphasize efficiency but also holistic assessments of digital finance’s carbon footprint. European Central Bank
Source: ECB – “From hype to hazard: what stablecoins mean for Europe.” European Central Bank
30. Interoperability and the survival of global standard stablecoins
The BoE and ECB highlight that the future landscape will depend heavily on interoperability across chains, wallets, and payment systems, including how stablecoins plug into central bank RTGS and possibly CBDCs. European Central Bank Bank of EnglandStablecoins that achieve broad, secure interoperability—across blockchains and into regulated financial infrastructure—are more likely to become global standards, while isolated tokens may remain niche or fade as regulation tightens. European Central Bank Bank of England
Source: ECB blog; Bank of England discussion paper. European Central Bank Bank of England
Keywords
- Core concepts: stablecoins, asset‑backed stablecoins, algorithmic stablecoins, peg stability, reserves, money‑market‑fund‑like risk
- Banking system: disintermediation, fractional‑reserve banking, concentration risk, systemic payment systems, shadow banking, GENIUS Act
- Regulation: MiCA, reserve requirements, prudential oversight, AML/CFT, sanctions enforcement, ring‑fenced reserves, lender of last resort
- Monetary policy: monetary transmission mechanism, dollarization, monetary sovereignty, CBDC, digital euro, seigniorage
- DeFi & markets: collateral, DeFi liquidity, fire‑sales, T‑bill market, on‑chain attestations, interoperability, PoS blockchains
- Inclusion & global use: remittances, financial inclusion, unbanked, gig economy, SMEs, trade finance, programmable payments, tax automation
About the Author
