Stablecoins: 'Central Bank of Central Banks' Doubts Their Credibility

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is taking a tougher stance on stablecoins. Its General Manager Pablo Hernández de Cos believes these assets do not constitute a credible large-scale means of payment. Instead, he favors tokenized deposits, deemed better suited to preserving the current monetary architecture. The article Stablecoins: 'Central Bank of Central Banks' Doubts Their Credibility appeared first on Cryptoast.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) recently issued a sharp critique of stablecoins, questioning their suitability as a global monetary foundation. According to Pablo Hernández de Cos, the institution's General Manager, these fiat-backed digital assets lack the reliability required to support large-scale daily transactions. Rather than favoring the expansion of stablecoins, the BIS advocates for the development of tokenized deposits, presented as a more robust alternative capable of integrating technological innovations while respecting the existing financial architecture.

This stance highlights major concerns regarding the stability of the banking sector. A massive shift of capital from traditional bank accounts into stablecoins could mechanically increase funding costs for commercial banks. As a ripple effect, this phenomenon risks leading to higher borrowing rates for businesses and individuals alike. Furthermore, the rise of these instruments raises questions about monetary sovereignty, particularly as the use of dollar-denominated stablecoins intensifies in foreign jurisdictions, thereby complicating the implementation of national monetary policies.

The debate is exacerbated by the colossal weight of market players like Tether and its stablecoin USDT, whose market capitalization is now approaching $183.34 billion. Beyond sheer volume, the BIS points to persistent structural deficiencies: a glaring lack of interoperability between exchanges and the still inconsistent application of anti-money laundering (AML) standards. These flaws reinforce the determination of regulators to regain control over a rapidly evolving ecosystem.

Currently, the global regulatory landscape remains deeply fragmented. A recent study by the Financial Stability Institute reveals divergent approaches: while the United States and Singapore favor a restrictive stance—notably excluding staking or lending activities for non-bank issuers—regions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong maintain a more nuanced posture. This regulatory disparity complicates the management of systemic risks and illustrates the difficulty authorities face in overseeing an asset whose influence now extends well beyond the borders of crypto-native markets.