Stablecoins’ role in crypto and beyond: functions, risks and policy
Stablecoins are in the spotlight due to their rapid growth, increasing global use cases and potential financial hazard contagion channels. This article analyses the function played past stablecoins inside the wider crypto-nugget ecosystem and finds that some existing stablecoins are already critical to liquidity in crypto-asset markets. This could take wide-ranging implications for crypto-asset markets if a large stablecoin were to neglect and could also have contagion effects if crypto-avails’ interlinkages with the traditional fiscal system go on rise. To date, the speed and cost of stablecoin transactions, as well as their redemption terms and conditions, have fallen brusque of what is required of applied means of payment in the existent economy. Their growth, innovation and increasing apply cases, coupled with their potential contamination channels to the fiscal sector, call for the urgent implementation of constructive regulatory, supervisory and oversight frameworks before significant further interconnectedness with the traditional financial organization occurs.
Stablecoins are currently in the spotlight of policymakers due to their rapid growth, increasing global employ cases and potential financial risk contamination channels.
Stablecoins are a segment of the wider crypto-asset ecosystem along with what is oftentimes referred to equally unbacked crypto-avails.
They were developed to address the loftier toll fluctuations of unbacked crypto-assets such equally bitcoin and ether, and their comparatively low price volatility predestines stablecoins for a number of functions where this property is needed. Yet, events in early May showed that stablecoins may not exist so stable subsequently all. Their reserve assets (in the case of collateralised stablecoins) give them a direct link to the traditional financial sector, which warrants policymakers’ attention.
Stablecoins are digital units of value that rely on stabilisation tools to maintain a stable value relative to ane or several official currencies or other assets (including crypto-assets).
Stabilisation tools include reserve assets confronting which stablecoin holdings can exist redeemed, as used by so-called collateralised stablecoins, and algorithms that match supply and demand to maintain a stable value, every bit used by and then-called algorithmic stablecoins.
This commodity discusses the fiscal stability implications of stablecoins stemming from their electric current role in the crypto-asset ecosystem.
First, it analyses the importance of stablecoins within wider crypto-asset markets before going on to examine whether they fulfil the requirements of applied means of payment in the real economy. The article finishes past highlighting what the current role of stablecoins implies for fiscal stability and the importance of their regulation.
2 Stablecoins’ role inside the crypto-nugget ecosystem
The uses of stablecoins within the crypto-nugget ecosystem accept multiplied in recent years.
Initially, stablecoins were mainly used as a relatively safe “parking space” for crypto volatility and equally a bridge to trade crypto-assets.
But with the rise of decentralised finance (DeFi) applications, stablecoins take gained new uses.
Stablecoins account for merely a small office of the total crypto-asset market place, only the largest ones have causeless a critical part within the crypto-asset ecosystem.
Although their market capitalisation increased from €23 billion in early 2021 to merely nether €150 billion in the starting time quarter of 2022, stablecoins still only account for beneath 10% of the total crypto-asset market. However, they have become a disquisitional office of the crypto-asset ecosystem due to their frequent employ in the trading of crypto-assets and equally liquidity providers in DeFi. This holds specifically for the stablecoins dominating the market. Tether, USD Money and Binance USD, which are all collateralised stablecoins, account for effectually ninety% of the total stablecoin marketplace. Other stablecoins with meaningful shares include the algorithmic stablecoins DAI and – until its crash on nine May, which wiped out about its entire market capitalisation – TerraUSD.
The largest existing stablecoin, Tether, has already become critical in crypto-asset trading.
I major activity for which stablecoins are used is crypto-nugget trading, where they function as a bridge betwixt official currencies and crypto-avails. Driven past Tether, the trading volumes of stablecoins surpassed those of unbacked crypto-assets in the course of 2021, reaching average quarterly trading volumes of €2.96 trillion, almost on a par with those of US equities on the New York Stock Exchange (€3.12 trillion).
In improver, Tether is involved in half of all trades of bitcoin and ether, which is a college proportion than the trades of bitcoin and ether against official currencies
(Chart 1, panel a), and accounted for around 65% of all trading on crypto-asset trading platforms in March 2022.
Tether dominates trading volumes within the crypto-asset ecosystem, and stablecoins provide about of the liquidity for decentralised trading and lending
Stablecoins provide virtually of the liquidity in DeFi applications such equally decentralised exchanges and lending protocols.
Stablecoins provided around 45% of the liquidity in decentralised exchanges (DEXes) in May 2022 (Chart 1, console b).[eleven]
About half of this amount was provided by collateralised stablecoins. However, for collateralised stablecoins like Tether and USD Coin, liquidity provision for decentralised trading or lending is relatively low compared to their full market capitalisation (less than 8%). This suggests they are nevertheless mainly used for other purposes in the crypto-nugget ecosystem. Past comparison, for algorithmic stablecoins similar DAI (more than xxx%) and TerraUSD (more than than 75% before its crash), liquidity provision in DeFi represents a substantial share of their full market capitalisation.
For these item stablecoins, usage in DeFi is thus quite important.
3 Stablecoins every bit means of payment
Stablecoins autumn short of what is required of practical means of payment for the real economy.
Below, several technical aspects on how stablecoins fall short of the requirements needed for real economy payments are elaborated, although without including a detailed comparison with traditional payment systems that offering other benefits such as legal certainty, settlement certitude and operational resilience.
European payment service providers (PSPs) are not very active in stablecoin markets and offer limited stablecoin payment services.
One reason for this lack of activity could be regulatory dubiousness awaiting the adoption of the Markets in Crypto-assets (MiCA) Regulation. Most service providers agile in stablecoin markets in the Eu are registered in the EU, with only a few authorised every bit PSPs, while the majority are registered as virtual nugget service providers (under the current anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) framework). Activity varies considerably between Eu Member States. Services related to stablecoins in the EU mainly consist of acquisition, property or selling via different means, while the availability of services for spending stablecoins at merchants is currently limited. Near stablecoins offered by Eu PSPs are yet USD-pegged, with only a few offering EUR-pegged stablecoins.
Transaction speeds differ by blockchain only are slow for stablecoins issued on the predominant blockchain.
Transaction speeds as measured by the confirmation fourth dimension for an average transaction vary by blockchain (Chart 2, panel a) and depend inter alia on the consensus mechanism used. Other factors such as the cake fourth dimension and size, transaction fees and network traffic also influence transaction speeds. The Ethereum blockchain is nonetheless the predominant blockchain on which many stablecoins operate, although this is changing.
The duration between transaction blocks of the largest stablecoins on the Ethereum blockchain, such as Tether, USD Coin and DAI, is comparable to that of ether and faster than for transactions of bitcoin (Nautical chart 2, console b). However, the transaction fourth dimension is not most-instant or real-time every bit required for usage at the physical point of auction or in e-commerce. Additionally, transaction speeds differ between stablecoins on the same blockchain with smaller and less liquid stablecoins and those pegged to real assets like golden, which have longer transaction times.[xiv]
It is not articulate if blockchain technology will ever be able to outperform not-blockchain payment engineering science.
Private stablecoins are argued to be technologically superior to traditional payment systems because they use blockchain platforms. However, this superiority may be temporary. Equally an example, during testing for a central bank digital currency, the Federal Reserve Banking concern of Boston showed that a non-blockchain payment technology can perform ten times more transactions per second than a high-performance blockchain technology.
The necessary ordering of valid transactions to prevent double spending in the blockchain creates bottlenecks that limit scalability and may ultimately hamper fast payments.
Blockchain networks differ in their scalability, but even on the same blockchain, stablecoin transaction speeds may differ
Stablecoin transaction costs can vary substantially and do not show a clear-cut advantage compared with traditional payment schemes.
Transaction costs of stablecoins vary depending on a number of factors, such as the complexity of a transaction or the congestion of the network, leading to higher fees.[xvi]
Assay of stablecoin transaction fees by Mizrach (2022) shows that, for a large portion of stablecoins, the transaction costs are higher than those of ATM transactions or the average costs of Visa or Mastercard schemes in Europe.
However, there are differences across stablecoins. While the median transaction fee for Tether is similar to the price of an ATM transaction, it is three to 4 times higher if DAI or USD Coin is used. In add-on, customers ofttimes apply payment accounts with (flat) fees to encompass most of their payment services. If these payment accounts remain essential for end users’ everyday payment use and finish users need an additional account or wallet for stablecoins, then using stablecoins may represent another layer of fees and be unattractive for finish users.
Stablecoin issuers are moving to new blockchain technologies to address the scalability and efficiency issues of the current most-used blockchains.
The bulk of stablecoins are minted on blockchains using proof-of-work (Pow) consensus mechanisms that crave network participants (the so-chosen miners) to compete with each other on the network to solve the complex puzzles involved in validating new transactions and adding new blocks. This non only makes Prisoner of war blockchains slower and less scalable, simply also highly energy-consuming.
New blockchain networks following proof-of-pale (PoS) or proof-of-history (PoH) consensus mechanisms increase speed by requiring less network participants (or “validators”), reducing the computational power needed to verify each cake transaction.
These networks, including Tron, Barrage, Algorand and Solana, enable more transactions to be performed per 2d than on the Ethereum or bitcoin networks, are more scalable and have lower transaction costs (Chart two, console a). Nevertheless, there may be a trade-off between scalability, security and decentralisation.
The largest stablecoins constrain users’ redemption possibilities.
Users should be able to redeem their stablecoins at whatever moment and at par value to the referenced official currency. As is the case for traditional PSPs, users should also be able to easily admission data near the redemption terms. However, stablecoin issuers constrain users in their redemption possibilities and offer bereft public disclosure about their redemption terms. For case, the largest stablecoin issuers offer redemption only once per week or during business days.
In addition, the right to redeem at par value to the official currency of denomination is non e’er ensured, significant redemptions are dependent on reserve valuation or must be made in-kind.
In some cases, holders of stablecoins also face limits or loftier minimum thresholds for redemptions. This makes them unredeemable for the majority of ordinary retail users.
In improver, consumer protection measures such every bit transparency requirements, refunds, protection from excessive fees and fraud compensation are currently not applicable for stablecoins.
4 Potential risks to financial stability stemming from stablecoins
Stablecoins may pose risks to financial stability through dissimilar contagion channels.
These channels include: (i) fiscal sector exposures; (2) wealth effects (i.e. the degree to which changes in the value of crypto-assets might impact their investors, with subsequent knock-on furnishings on the financial organisation); (iii) confidence furnishings (i.e. the caste to which developments concerning crypto-assets could affect investor confidence in crypto-asset markets and potentially the broader financial arrangement); and (4) the extent of crypto-avails’ utilise in payments and settlements.
Issuers of collateralised stablecoins need to ensure robust reserve nugget management to instil confidence, ensure the stability of the peg and avoid a run on the coin with possible contagion to the fiscal sector.
Similar money market place funds (MMFs), reserve avails of stablecoins need to exist liquid to allow users to redeem their stablecoins in fiat currency. Adequate management of reserve avails underpins users’ confidence in stablecoins. A loss of confidence could trigger large-scale redemption requests – especially if there are limited redemption possibilities (Section three) – leading to the liquidation of reserve assets with negative contamination furnishings on the financial system. Information technology is worth noting that the largest stablecoins have already reached a calibration comparable to large prime MMFs domiciled in Europe.
While the transparency of reserve asset limerick has increased somewhat over the last twelvemonth, details are still scarce.
Reserve asset disclosures have become more than transparent since early 2021, and at that place has been a shift towards more liquid assets.
Nevertheless, Tether still holds big investments in commercial paper despite a xx% reduction by the stop of 2021, also as positions in MMFs and digital tokens.[xxx]
The lack of granular information on the geographical origin or verbal size of Tether’due south commercial paper holdings – as they are not separated from certificates of deposits – impedes a clear view on the liquidity of these reserves and the contagion furnishings for short-term funding markets. In improver, it is difficult to compare the composition of reserve avails across stablecoins given the lack of disclosure and reporting standards.
Recent developments evidence that stablecoins are anything only stable, equally exemplified by the crash of TerraUSD and the temporary de-pegging of Tether.
Amid a general downturn in the crypto-asset markets, TerraUSD lost its peg to the US dollar on nine May and crashed to a price below USD x cents afterward 16 May. At the aforementioned time, its marketplace capitalisation fell from effectually €18 billion to less than €2 billion (Chart 3, panel a). Amid the ensuing crypto market stress, the price of Tether came under pressure, with the largest stablecoin temporarily losing its peg on 12 May (Nautical chart 3, panel b). Since then, Tether has seen outflows of more than €8 billion, equivalent to well-nigh ten% of its market capitalisation. This episode shows that stablecoins cannot guarantee their peg and, if information technology is lost, at that place is a risk of contamination within the crypto-asset ecosystem. It seems the market has differentiated between stablecoins. In the example of Tether, shortcomings in its redemption possibilities and a loss of confidence potentially related to the opacity of its reserve composition may have played a office in the de-pegging and continuous outflows observed.
The other 2 major collateralised stablecoins, USD Coin and Binance USD, have instead seen small inflows (Chart 3, panel a).
Since temporarily losing its peg to the US dollar, Tether’s market capitalisation has fallen alongside that of the failed stablecoin TerraUSD, while the market capitalisation of other large stablecoins has slightly increased
Holders of stablecoins may face losses in the event of a run on or failure of a stablecoin.
holdings of Tether, USD Money and DAI are concentrated among large investors, i.e. those belongings more 1 meg coins (Chart 4). They business relationship for more 80-90% of the supply of these stablecoins on the Ethereum blockchain,
while retail investors, defined as having a balance of less than 10,000 units of each of these stablecoins, stand for 3% or less. Data gaps exercise not allow for the identification of these large investors. Anecdotal evidence suggests that they may be specialised institutional investors, such as specialised crypto funds or hedge funds, in which case spillovers to the financial arrangement would exist express.
In the specific case of TerraUSD, holders have suffered huge losses.
Growing involvement by banks, PSPs and large techs in the issuance or use of stablecoins is likely to increase connections with the traditional financial system.
In the United States, a consortium of banks insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation recently announced their plans to consequence a stablecoin.
In the European union, banks and fiscal institutions may also exist interested in issuing stablecoins or offering related services once the MiCA Regulation enters into strength. In add-on, the use of stablecoins may accelerate if large engineering science companies (big techs) start offering their own stablecoins or integrate existing stablecoins into their wallets.
Stablecoins are mainly held by big investors
Insofar equally unbacked crypto-assets may pose a adventure to fiscal stability in the future, the critical function some stablecoins play in the wider crypto-asset ecosystem is a concern for financial stability.
The nature and calibration of crypto-asset markets are evolving quickly, and if current trends continue, unbacked crypto-assets will pose risks to fiscal stability.
Equally the analysis in Section ii shows, stablecoins are closely intertwined with unbacked crypto-assets. If, for case, Tether were to fail, a substantial amount of trading liquidity in the crypto-asset ecosystem would dry out up. This could disrupt trading and price discovery in crypto-asset markets. In turn, it could have contamination effects for the financial system if at some point in the time to come crypto-asset markets pose a gamble to financial stability.
5 Regulating stablecoins
Given the potential risks and cantankerous-border nature of stablecoins, a granular and robust global regulatory approach is essential.
Important steps have already been taken in this direction. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision and oversight of global stablecoins in 2020.
All the same, the FSB recommendations provide simply high-level guidance. They are not granular plenty on the specific requirements needed to ensure the stability of stablecoins (for example, the capital and liquidity requirements necessary for the apparent management of reserve assets or public disclosure) and a level global playing field.
International standards will need to embrace all relevant entities and functions in a stablecoin organization.
Stablecoin arrangements are complex, consisting of a variety of functions and activities that in turn are performed by multiple entities beyond a range of sectors and jurisdictions. It volition thus be important to adequately cover all relevant entities and functions in a stablecoin arrangement. Global groups such as the FSB could provide granular guidance to close gaps in areas where relevant standards or standard-setting bodies do not exist. Furthermore, the standards should ensure consistency in requirements, regardless of the sectoral origin of a stablecoin’southward sponsors, functions and activities (for example, if it is issued by a bank or by other entities), in accordance with the “same business, same risk, same rule” principle.
Existing international sectoral standards may leave gaps in terms of adequately mitigating the inherent risks of stablecoins.
International sectoral standards were designed at a time when stablecoins did not exist. As a result, the regulatory treatment of exposures to stablecoins and the prudential requirements to be practical when bold whatsoever stablecoin functions/activities have notwithstanding to exist determined for the different financial sectors.
Given the rapid growth of the stablecoin market, stablecoins need to be brought into the regulatory perimeter with urgency.
A skilful example is the EU’s proposed MiCA Regulation, which needs to be implemented urgently.
The EU is leading international efforts to put in place a new, harmonised regulatory framework for stablecoins, edifice on the EU e-coin directive and taking into business relationship its limitations. The MiCA Regulation is a bespoke framework for the issuance and provision of services related to stablecoins and other crypto-avails. Under this regulation, stablecoin issuers and crypto-asset service providers are subject to the same set of minimum requirements, irrespective of their applicable licensing regime. For instance, e-money institutions are 1 of two types of issuers allowed to result stablecoins along with credit institutions. Their requirements are overlaid with additional requirements to address the bank-like risks arising from stablecoin issuance (for instance, risks related to reserve avails). To accost potential systemic risks, more than stringent requirements are to exist applied to “significant stablecoins” that could pose a greater threat to financial stability, monetary policy manual and monetary sovereignty. Recent events around TerraUSD underline the need to distinguish between different types of stablecoins according to the risks they pose. The idea that stability tin can be created in an algorithmic stablecoin with no collateral or quasi-collateral consisting of unbacked crypto-assets that have no inherent value seems to be wishful thinking. Algorithmic stablecoins should be treated equally unbacked crypto-avails, according to the actual risk of their collateral or lack thereof.
Financial stability risks from stablecoins are currently still limited in the euro area, but if growth trends continue at their electric current pace, this may change in the future.
Stablecoins take grown rapidly to become an of import part of the crypto-nugget ecosystem, with some posing risks to liquidity in crypto-asset markets in the event of failure.
The speed and cost of stablecoin transactions, also as their redemption terms and conditions, fall brusque of what is required of practical ways of payment for the real economy.
Effective regulation of stablecoins is disquisitional for responsible innovation and financial stability.
Appropriate regulation, supervision and oversight need to be implemented before stablecoins become a take a chance to financial stability and the smoothen performance of payment systems. Existing stablecoins urgently need to be brought into the regulatory perimeter, and new ones need a regulatory framework to be established. To cater for their specific risks, algorithmic stablecoins should exist treated as unbacked crypto-assets. Where stablecoins are used for payment purposes, regulatory regimes need to provide farther clarity with respect to other areas such equally information privacy, consumer protection, market integrity, AML/CFT and tax rules. At the international level, it will be of import to ensure a level playing field globally through a consistent, granular and robust regulatory approach. This includes both the regulation of stablecoins per se and the regulation of exposures of traditional fiscal sectors that are interlinked with stablecoins.
Adachi, M., Born, A., Gschossmann, I. and van der Kraaij, A. (2021), “The expanding functions and uses of stablecoins”,
Financial Stability Review, ECB, November.
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2021), “Prudential handling of cryptoasset exposures”,
Consultative Document, June.
Born, A., Gschossmann, I., Hodbod, A., Lambert, C. and Pellicani, A. (2022), “Decentralised finance – a new unregulated non-bank organization?”,
Macroprudential Bulletin, Result 18, ECB, July.
Bullmann, D., Klemm, J. and Pinna, A. (2019), “In search for stability in crypto-assets: are stablecoins the solution?”,
Occasional Paper Series, No 230, ECB, Baronial.
Buterin, Five. (2021), “Why sharding is swell: demystifying the technical properties”.
ECB Crypto-Avails Task Force (2020), “Stablecoins: Implications for monetary policy, financial stability, market place infrastructure and payments, and banking supervision in the euro area”,
Occasional Paper Serial, No 247, ECB, September.
Financial Stability Board (2022), Assessment of Risks to Fiscal Stability from Crypto-avails, February.
Gorton, K. and Zhang, J. (forthcoming), “Taming Wildcat Stablecoins”,
Academy of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 90, University of Chicago Law School.
Gschossmann, I., van der Kraaij, A., Benoit, P-L. and Rocher, Eastward. (2022), “Mining the environment – is climate take a chance priced into crypto-avails?”,
Macroprudential Bulletin, Issue 18, ECB, July.
Hermans, 50., Ianiro, A., Kochanska, U., van der Kraaij, A. and Vendrell Simón, J.M. (2022), “Decrypting financial stability risks in crypto-asset markets”, Special Characteristic A,
Financial Stability Review, ECB, May.
Liao, Thousand. and Caramichael, J. (2022), “Stablecoins: Growth Potential and Impact on Banking,”
International Finance Word Papers, No 1334, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January.
Lyons, R. and Viswanath-Natraj, G. (2020), “What Keeps Stablecoins Stable?”,
NBER Working Newspaper Serial, No 27136, National Agency of Economic Inquiry, May.
Medalie, C., Aubert, D. and Ryder, C, (2022), “What’south Driving Tether’s De-Pegging?”, Kaiko blog, 12 May.
Mizrach, B. (2022), “Stablecoins: Survivorship, Transactions Costs and Exchange Microstructure”.
Organisation for Economical Co-operation and Evolution (2022), Why Decentralised Finance (DeFi) Matters and the Policy Implications, Jan.