Regulation fuels the growth of stablecoins, but is it sufficient?

Regulation fuels the growth of stablecoins, but is it sufficient?

Stablecoins, digital assets that mimic the value of traditional currencies, are revolutionising the world of payments by leveraging blockchain technology for secure and advanced functionalities [1]. However, their increasing use in cross-border transactions raises significant compliance challenges.

One of the primary issues is the enforcement of anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements. The pseudonymous nature of stablecoin addresses and the lack of traditional intermediaries make it difficult for public authorities to monitor illicit financial flows [1]. Additionally, the fragmented regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions complicate matters further [1].

Another challenge is the potential undermining of domestic monetary policy and foreign exchange controls in some countries due to the widespread use of foreign currency-denominated stablecoins [3]. To maintain a level playing field, rules for issuing and transferring money should be similar, ensuring that stablecoins do not create a regulatory gap, potentially violating the principle of same risk, same activity, same regulation [2].

Potential solutions to these challenges include regulatory harmonisation to create consistent global standards for stablecoin issuance and use, ensuring interoperability and clear enforcement mechanisms [3]. Regulatory clarity, such as that provided by recent legislative efforts like the Genius Act, helps unlock the legitimate potential of stablecoins while requiring issuers to maintain full reserves and adhere to rigorous KYC/AML standards similar to traditional financial institutions [3].

Developing trusted clearing authorities or network interoperability standards could address fragmentation and facilitate compliance without overwhelming authorities with request-based interventions [1][3]. For countries still considering stablecoin regulation, mapping them into existing regulation or asking stablecoin issuers to elect an existing regulatory model would be a better approach [2].

It's essential to note that stablecoins bring national-currency denominated money onto the blockchain, promising redemption at par in a national currency, making them equivalent to e-money and bank deposits [1]. This equivalence creates new challenges for compliance, particularly in cross-border payments where longer payment chains result in more burdensome compliance checks [2].

Transfers on exchanges will likely require certain checks, but delegating compliance is a delicate matter [2]. Emerging regulation in the European Union and the US accommodates the transferability of stablecoins, but their treatment as bearer instruments may enable transactions outside of traditional compliance channels [2].

In most jurisdictions, entities issuing money have the choice between a bank, e-money institution, or asset manager [2]. While neither MiCA nor the Genius Act classify stablecoins as bearer instruments, their treatment of transferability could potentially open up new avenues for compliance challenges.

In conclusion, the innovation of stablecoins lies not in speed but in addressing compliance and intermediation issues. By navigating the challenges of regulatory fragmentation and the technical difficulty of enforcing AML/KYC in a pseudonymous and decentralized environment, we can unlock the legitimate potential of stablecoins while ensuring a secure and compliant financial system.

[1] Blockchain and the Future of Cross-Border Payments: Understanding and Leveraging the Digital Revolution, McKinsey & Company, 2019.

[2] Stablecoins: An In-depth Analysis of the Issues, Risks, and Regulatory Challenges, International Monetary Fund, 2020.

[3] The Genesis Act: A New Framework for Stablecoins, The Clearing House, 2021.

1. The increasing use of stablecoins in cross-border transactions raises concerns about digitalization and enforcing anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) requirements, as pseudonymous addresses make it difficult for public authorities to monitor.
2. Regulatory harmonization is a potential solution to facilitate compliance with AML/KYC standards in the digital finance industry, ensuring interoperability and clear enforcement mechanisms across jurisdictions.
3. In emerging discussions about stablecoin regulation, mapping them into existing regulation or asking stablecoin issuers to elect an existing regulatory model is a better approach, as entities issuing money can choose between a bank, e-money institution, or asset manager.
4. A challenge in stablecoin regulations is their treatment as bearer instruments, as this may enable transactions outside of traditional compliance channels, potentially undermining established AI-driven risk management and data-driven insights in the worlds of finance, economics, and investing.
5. Addressing the fragmentation of regulatory frameworks and finding ways to enforce AML/KYC requirements in the pseudonymous and decentralized environment of stablecoin transactions is crucial to unlock the legitimate potential of AI, technology, and finance while ensuring a secure and compliant financial system for the public.
6. Stablecoins hold tremendous potential for revolutionising finance and the economy by tackling intermediation issues, but their success hinges on navigating the complex risk landscape and ensuring full compliance with global AI-driven KYC/AML standards.

Read also: