This article reflects the views of Joël Valenzuela, Director of Marketing and Business Development at Dash.
Fifteen years have passed since the inception of Bitcoin, catalyzing the development of a robust ecosystem valued at nearly $4 trillion. Yet, Satoshi Nakamoto’s dream of facilitating everyday transactions through peer-to-peer payments remains mostly unachieved. The narrative has now shifted toward stablecoins, which many hope will bridge this gap. However, rather than revolutionizing the financial landscape and dethroning banks, stablecoins are at risk of evolving into a banking-like infrastructure. Increasing regulatory measures in both the U.S. and Europe may inadvertently steer these digital currencies towards a centralized system, reminiscent of traditional finance.
The Shift: Regulation and the Evolution of Stablecoins
In the United States, the GENIUS Act has set the stage for a federal framework governing stablecoins, outlining who can create them, how they should be backed, and the levels of regulatory oversight required. On the other side of the Atlantic, the MiCA regulation (Markets in Crypto-Assets) is now in effect, imposing stringent guidelines for stablecoins categorized as either “e-money tokens” or “asset-referenced tokens” as of 2024.
While these regulatory frameworks enhance the legitimacy and safety of stablecoins, they also compel issuers to operate under banking-like constraints. Compliance with reserve requirements, audits, Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, and redemption rules alters the foundational nature of stablecoins. They start transforming into centralized gateways rather than serving as decentralized, peer-to-peer monetary solutions. An alarming statistic is that over 60% of corporate stablecoin usage is applied to cross-border settlements, indicating a shift away from consumer-level transactions.
The Risk of Mimicking SWIFT
The term “becoming the next SWIFT” signifies a potential evolution into a primary rail for institutional transactions—efficient, but lacking openness; centralized, yet crucial. SWIFT revolutionized international banking by facilitating communication between financial institutions, but it did not democratize access to financial services. Should stablecoins follow this path, they may yield quicker transaction methods for existing players without empowering the unbanked populace.
The promise of cryptocurrencies lies in programmable money—solutions that embody logic, autonomy, and user control. When transactions necessitate issuer approval, compliance tags, and scrutinized addresses, the underlying architecture transforms. The network risks becoming compliance-centric infrastructure rather than true money, diminishing its revolutionary potential.
A Blueprint for Open, Compliant Payment Systems
The core issue isn’t the need for regulation but rather how we design these systems. To realize the full capabilities of stablecoins while addressing regulatory criteria, developers and lawmakers must seamlessly integrate compliance into the protocol framework. This should aim to maintain cross-jurisdictional composability and ensure non-custodial access. In the practical realm, initiatives like the Blockchain Payments Consortium offer a glimpse of a collaborative future—one where standardizing cross-chain payments doesn’t compromise openness.
For stablecoins to reach their potential, they must actively cater to individual users in addition to institutional players. If their functionality is limited to widespread players and regulated flows, they risk conformity rather than disruption. The design must foster genuine peer-to-peer transactions, offer selective privacy, and guarantee interoperability. Failing to achieve this would merely replace existing hierarchical structures with faster versions of the same.
Though stablecoins are still capable of redefining monetary interactions, allowing them to become institutionalized rails designed for banks risks replacing one form of centralization with another. The central question isn’t about whether to impose regulation—this will undoubtedly happen—but rather whether we can create systems that promote inclusion and autonomy rather than merely locking us into outdated systems masked as innovative digital solutions. The future of our financial ecosystem hinges on this critical choice.
Disclaimer – this was a promoted (paid) post as part of our Thought Leadership program for contributors.
