Stablecoins not credible for payments at scale, BIS chief says
Reported by Cointelegraph · AI-assisted summary by ChikoCorp AI News Desk
AI-generated summary based on the linked source; not independently verified. This is not investment advice. Verify market-moving details at the original publisher before acting. See our editorial policy, AI content policy, and financial disclaimer.
Summary
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has renewed its criticism of stablecoins, questioning their credibility as scalable everyday payment methods. BIS General Manager Pablo Hernández de Cos argued that tokenized bank deposits are a stronger alternative to stablecoins. The BIS-linked Financial Stability Institute (FSI) released a study showing significant differences in stablecoin regulation across major markets.
Why it matters
This development matters as regulators worldwide are shaping frameworks to manage the adoption and risks of stablecoins. Hernández de Cos highlighted concerns such as limited interoperability, challenges in anti-money laundering enforcement, and the potential undermining of monetary sovereignty. The BIS also noted that stablecoins might influence government borrowing costs and banking sector funding, affecting borrowing rates for consumers and businesses.
Key context
The BIS criticism comes amid global efforts to regulate stablecoins differently across jurisdictions. The FSI study compared regulations in the US, EU, UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore, noting varied restrictions on which entities may issue stablecoins and their permitted activities. Stablecoin issuer restrictions typically apply to the issuer entity but not necessarily to other corporate group members.
Key numbers and entities
Named entities include the Bank for International Settlements, Pablo Hernández de Cos, the Financial Stability Institute, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and markets such as the US, EU, UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Specific regulatory frameworks mentioned include the US GENIUS Act. No numerical figures were provided.
What remains unclear
The source does not specify which tokenized bank deposit models Hernández de Cos endorses or detailed plans for how regulators might harmonize stablecoin oversight internationally. It also leaves unclear the timeline and concrete policy changes that might arise from these BIS and FSI positions.