Despite promising instant, cheap cross-border payments, stablecoins lack features critical for corporate treasurers. The absence of FDIC insurance, a single standard ("singleness of money"), and interoperability between blockchains makes them too risky and fragmented for wholesale use.
Related Insights
The U.S. is approving stablecoins for a strategic reason: they require reserves, which must be U.S. treasuries. This policy creates a massive, new, non-traditional buyer for government debt, helping to finance enormous and growing fiscal deficits with a structural source of demand.
The cost to convert local currencies into dollar-backed stablecoins often includes a premium over the official FX rate. This "stablecoin access premium" is highly correlated with FX volatility, suggesting the newer stablecoin market is already taking pricing cues from the larger, more mature FX market.
By creating a regulatory framework that requires private stablecoins to be backed 1-to-1 by U.S. Treasuries, the government can prop up demand for its ever-increasing debt. This strategy is less about embracing financial innovation and more about extending the U.S. dollar's lifespan as the global reserve currency.
Widespread adoption of blockchain, particularly stablecoins, has been hindered by a "semi-illegal" regulatory environment in the U.S. (e.g., Operation Chokepoint). Now that this barrier is removed, major financial players are racing to integrate the technology, likely making it common within a year.
To extend the solvency of U.S. debt, create a one-to-one stablecoin backed by treasuries. This would grant global citizens, particularly in countries with unstable currencies, a direct way to save in a dollar-denominated asset. This new demand could lengthen the runway for U.S. fiscal policy.
Stablecoin adoption by U.S. entities merely shifts existing dollar assets from bank deposits or money market funds. True new demand for the U.S. dollar only materializes when foreign households or corporates convert their local currencies into dollar-backed stablecoins for the first time, creating a net FX conversion.
For stablecoin companies like Tether seeking legitimacy in the US market, the simplest path is to back their assets with US treasuries. This aligns their interests with the US government, turning a potential adversary into a welcome buyer of national debt, even if it means lower returns compared to riskier assets.
While stablecoins gain attention, tokenized deposits offer similar benefits—like on-chain transactions—but operate within the existing, trusted regulatory banking framework. As they are simply bank liabilities on a blockchain, they may become a more palatable alternative for corporates seeking efficiency without regulatory uncertainty.
Data showing average stablecoin transaction sizes of only $11,000 to $14,000 indicates that current usage in emerging markets is not dominated by large-scale corporate payments. This points to a user base more focused on retail, smaller B2B, or crypto trading activities, rather than wholesale cross-border finance.
The high profits enjoyed by stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle are temporary. Major financial institutions (Visa, JPMorgan) will eventually launch their own stablecoins, not as primary profit centers, but as low-cost tools to acquire and retain customers. This will drive margins down for the entire industry.