Jean Tirole pointed out that payment systems must be built on public infrastructure, rather than speculative tokens.

Source: The Economist

Translation: Luffy, Foresight News

Thanks to the push from the "GENIUS Act," stablecoins have entered mainstream finance. This U.S. law, passed in July this year, established a regulatory framework for stablecoins, granting them legitimacy while paving the way for financial institutions to launch their own stablecoins. The cryptocurrency project World Liberty Financial, supported by U.S. President Donald Trump and his family, has issued the stablecoin USD1. Currently, the hottest stablecoin—USDT issued by Tether—has seen its market value soar by 46% over the past 12 months, reaching $174 billion.

These cryptocurrencies, pegged to real assets like the U.S. dollar, claim to be more stable than the highly volatile Bitcoin, while being promoted as a "low-cost, high-speed" payment method. However, the risks posed by stablecoins far outweigh the benefits, and there are already better alternatives in the market.

The supporters of the first generation of cryptocurrencies (represented by Bitcoin) are diverse: there are tech geeks, libertarians seeking "freedom from government control," as well as money launderers and speculators eager for quick wealth. These cutting-edge crypto companies primarily thrive on minting profits (token issuance profits) and transaction fees (platform trading commissions).

Critics argue that these cryptocurrencies have little social value. They facilitate tax evasion, depriving governments of seigniorage revenue, and require high-energy-consuming mining to operate; more importantly, they undermine central banks' ability to stabilize the economy and curb capital flight during crises (especially when economies face speculative shocks). Their extreme volatility further prevents them from being considered true currencies.

The emergence of stablecoins is seen as a solution to the last problem. By pegging to safe assets like the U.S. dollar, they claim to "combine the efficiency of digital payments with the stability of asset prices." They also position themselves as competitors to existing costly institutions—banks and payment platforms like Visa, PayPal, and SWIFT—especially in the field of cross-border transfers. At first glance, this seems like progress for the industry. However, history has shown that seemingly safe financial innovations often serve as triggers for crises, just like financial derivatives and subprime mortgage-backed securities before the 2008 financial crisis.

Stablecoins are similar to money market funds: they appear safe on the surface but can easily collapse under pressure. At that point, the government may be forced to step in to rescue stablecoin holders due to "protecting small businesses and household assets," "preventing the spread of financial risks," or "maintaining the region's crypto-friendly reputation." This expectation of government backing, in turn, encourages risk-taking behavior by stablecoin issuers.

Supporters insist that stablecoins are fully backed by U.S. dollar assets (i.e., pegged to cash, bank deposits, U.S. Treasury bonds, money market funds, etc.), and that accounting firms will regularly audit the reserve size, with regulators responsible for interpreting audit results and enforcing necessary regulatory measures. However, in reality, full backing is far from guaranteed. Tether was fined for "false statements about reserve conditions," and its reserves have never undergone a comprehensive audit by an independent agency; another stablecoin issuer, Circle, faced risks to 8% of its reserves due to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, but fortunately, uninsured depositors of Silicon Valley Bank ultimately received public funds for rescue.

Even if reserves genuinely exist, even a slight doubt about whether they are sufficient can trigger a destructive run. The collapse of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD in 2022 serves as an example. More concerning is that the rules regarding stablecoin redemption in the "GENIUS Act"—including "how to respond to holders' redemption requests" and "whether payments can be suspended during a crisis to stabilize liquidity"—remain unclear.

Moreover, the yields on safe assets like cash and Treasury bonds are extremely low. Historically, many prudently regulated banks have sought higher returns by investing in high-risk products disguised as safe assets. So why assume that stablecoin issuers, regulated less stringently than banks, would behave more conservatively and not pursue returns through "interest rate speculation" or "investing uninsured deposits"?

The "GENIUS Act" prohibits stablecoin issuers from paying interest, a provision meant to appease banks, which worry that depositors will transfer funds to stablecoins. However, this ban does not apply to stablecoin trading platforms like Coinbase and PayPal. This regulatory discrepancy creates loopholes: platforms can collaborate with issuers without adhering to the regulatory rules imposed on issuers.

Some platforms are exploiting this loophole to indirectly offer yields (for example, both Coinbase and PayPal achieve this through transaction cashback) and are taking risks to support these yields. Unlike banks, these platforms are not required to meet "capital adequacy ratios" or "liquidity coverage ratios," nor do they have to pay deposit insurance premiums. As a result, they fall into the category of shadow banks, enjoying implicit public backing without bearing the corresponding regulatory costs.

Political factors further amplify the risks associated with stablecoins. The current U.S. government has personal economic interests in promoting cryptocurrencies, as well as ideological inclinations and geopolitical considerations. Cryptocurrencies can boost global demand for the U.S. dollar, thereby financing the U.S. trade deficit. Now, officials inclined to support the crypto industry have been appointed as regulators, and lax regulation has almost become a foregone conclusion.

This situation has raised concerns in Europe and other regions. If a country attempts to impose strict regulations on dollar-pegged stablecoins, it may be labeled by the Trump administration as an unfair trade barrier, similar to the current U.S. stance on Europe's control over tech giants.

The popularity of stablecoins highlights the genuine market demand for better payment methods: faster, cheaper, available 24/7, and programmable. However, such payment systems should be constructed and provided directly by the public sector. Currently, Brazil and China have efficient digital payment systems; the Eurozone is also advancing the development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Payment systems are inherently public goods and should not be dominated by private speculative capital.

Of course, private enterprises are often the source of innovation, so public payment infrastructure should remain open, providing programming interfaces that allow entrepreneurs to develop applications on top of it. If this can be achieved, such a system can combine public trust with private innovative vitality.

Stablecoins may attract attention as the latest financial trend, but while they make a few people wealthy, they may also bring instability risks to the financial system. A more reasonable choice is to view payment systems as shared public utilities, rather than playgrounds for speculators.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。