The Evolving Landscape of Stablecoins: Navigating Regulatory Frameworks, Economic Implications, and Systemic Risks

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

Stablecoins, cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value relative to a reference asset such as the US dollar or gold, have emerged as a critical component of the digital asset ecosystem. Their potential to bridge the gap between traditional finance and decentralized finance (DeFi) has garnered significant attention from regulators, economists, and industry participants alike. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of stablecoins, exploring their underlying mechanisms, economic impact, diverse use cases, inherent risks, and the evolving regulatory landscape globally, with specific attention to the Australian context. We critically examine the suitability of existing payments laws, particularly Stored-Value Facility (SVF) regulations, and the role of prudential authorities like APRA in overseeing stablecoin issuers. Furthermore, we delve into the broader implications of stablecoin regulation on innovation, financial stability, and the future of digital assets.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

The rise of cryptocurrencies has presented both opportunities and challenges for the global financial system. While Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies offer potential benefits such as increased financial inclusion and reduced transaction costs, their inherent volatility has limited their widespread adoption as a medium of exchange. Stablecoins, designed to mitigate this volatility, have emerged as a promising alternative. Their value stability makes them attractive for various applications, including facilitating cross-border payments, providing collateral in DeFi protocols, and serving as a store of value in countries with unstable currencies. However, the rapid growth and increasing interconnectedness of stablecoins with the broader financial system have raised concerns about potential systemic risks. This report aims to provide a thorough analysis of the economic, regulatory, and systemic implications of stablecoins, focusing on the adequacy of current regulatory frameworks and the need for future adaptations.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Stablecoin Mechanisms and Classifications

Stablecoins employ various mechanisms to maintain their peg to a reference asset. These mechanisms can be broadly categorized into three main types:

• Fiat-Collateralized Stablecoins: These stablecoins are backed by reserves of fiat currency (e.g., US dollars) held in custody by the issuer. Each stablecoin is theoretically redeemable for one unit of the fiat currency it is pegged to. Examples include Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC). The trust in the issuer is critical, as users rely on the issuer to maintain sufficient reserves and facilitate redemptions. Opacity regarding reserve composition and audit practices can create vulnerabilities.

• Crypto-Collateralized Stablecoins: These stablecoins are backed by other cryptocurrencies, which are typically over-collateralized to account for the volatility of the underlying crypto assets. Smart contracts are used to manage collateralization ratios and maintain the peg. An example is Dai (DAI), which is backed by Ether (ETH) and other cryptocurrencies. While transparency is generally higher due to the use of blockchain technology, crypto-collateralized stablecoins are susceptible to volatility-induced de-pegging events and cascading liquidations.

• Algorithmic Stablecoins: These stablecoins rely on algorithms and smart contracts to maintain their peg. They typically involve burning or minting tokens based on market demand to influence the supply and price. Examples include (or, more accurately, included, given their recent failures) TerraUSD (UST). Algorithmic stablecoins are the most experimental and have proven to be the most prone to failure, as they rely on complex economic models that may not hold up under stress.

The success of each type of stablecoin depends on its ability to maintain its peg consistently. De-pegging events can erode trust and lead to significant market instability. The choice of mechanism has significant implications for the level of trust required in the issuer, the transparency of the system, and the potential for systemic risk.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Economic Impact and Use Cases of Stablecoins

Stablecoins have a multifaceted economic impact, spanning various sectors and applications. Their potential benefits include:

• Facilitating Cross-Border Payments: Stablecoins can streamline cross-border payments by reducing transaction costs and settlement times. Traditional cross-border payments often involve multiple intermediaries and can take days to complete. Stablecoins can enable near-instantaneous and low-cost transfers, particularly in regions with limited access to traditional banking services. This is particularly impactful for remittances and international trade.

• Enhancing DeFi Ecosystem: Stablecoins serve as the primary medium of exchange and collateral within the DeFi ecosystem. They enable users to participate in lending, borrowing, and trading activities without the volatility associated with other cryptocurrencies. Stablecoins also facilitate the creation of synthetic assets and other innovative financial products.

• Providing a Stable Store of Value: In countries with hyperinflation or unstable currencies, stablecoins can provide a more reliable store of value. They offer an alternative to holding local currency, which may be subject to rapid devaluation. This can help protect savings and facilitate economic activity.

• Improving Trading Efficiency: Stablecoins can improve trading efficiency on cryptocurrency exchanges by providing a stable base currency. This reduces the need for frequent conversions between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies, lowering transaction costs and increasing liquidity.

However, the economic impact of stablecoins is not without potential risks. Widespread adoption of stablecoins could lead to disintermediation of traditional banks, reduced demand for central bank money, and increased concentration of power in the hands of stablecoin issuers. Furthermore, the potential for illicit activities, such as money laundering and terrorist financing, remains a significant concern.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Risks Posed by Stablecoins

Stablecoins pose a range of risks to financial stability and consumer protection, including:

• Run Risk: Fiat-collateralized stablecoins are susceptible to run risk, similar to traditional money market funds. If users lose confidence in the issuer’s ability to maintain the peg or redeem stablecoins, they may rush to redeem their holdings, potentially leading to a collapse of the stablecoin. This risk is amplified by opacity regarding reserve composition and audit practices.

• Credit Risk: Credit risk arises from the possibility that the issuer of a stablecoin may default on its obligations. This is particularly relevant for stablecoins backed by assets with credit risk, such as corporate bonds. The risk is compounded by the potential for maturity mismatches between the stablecoin liabilities and the underlying assets.

• Market Risk: Crypto-collateralized stablecoins are exposed to market risk due to the volatility of the underlying crypto assets. Sharp declines in the value of these assets can trigger liquidations and de-pegging events. The interconnectedness of different stablecoins and DeFi protocols can amplify these risks.

• Operational Risk: Stablecoin systems are vulnerable to operational risks, such as cyberattacks, software bugs, and human error. These risks can disrupt stablecoin operations and lead to losses for users. The complexity of stablecoin systems and the lack of standardized security protocols increase the potential for operational failures.

• Systemic Risk: The increasing interconnectedness of stablecoins with the broader financial system raises concerns about systemic risk. A failure of a major stablecoin could have cascading effects, impacting other stablecoins, DeFi protocols, and traditional financial institutions. The lack of regulatory oversight and standardized risk management practices exacerbates this risk.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Global Regulatory Approaches to Stablecoins

Regulators around the world are grappling with the challenges of regulating stablecoins. Different jurisdictions have adopted diverse approaches, reflecting varying priorities and risk appetites. Some key examples include:

• United States: The US has been actively exploring regulatory frameworks for stablecoins. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG), along with the FDIC and OCC, issued a report in 2021 recommending that Congress enact legislation to regulate stablecoin issuers as banks. The report also highlighted concerns about the potential for stablecoins to disrupt the financial system and recommended that regulators have the authority to oversee stablecoin activities.

• European Union: The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation provides a comprehensive framework for regulating crypto-assets, including stablecoins. MiCA establishes clear rules for stablecoin issuers, including capital requirements, reserve management, and consumer protection. It also introduces a licensing regime for stablecoin issuers and requires them to be supervised by competent authorities.

• United Kingdom: The UK is taking a phased approach to regulating stablecoins. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued guidance on the application of existing regulations to stablecoins. The government is also considering introducing new legislation to provide a more comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins, including requirements for reserve management and consumer protection.

• Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has adopted a risk-based approach to regulating stablecoins. MAS has issued guidance on the application of existing regulations to stablecoins and is considering introducing new regulations to address specific risks associated with stablecoins.

The diverse regulatory approaches reflect the complexity of the stablecoin landscape and the challenges of balancing innovation with financial stability. A key challenge is ensuring that regulations are sufficiently flexible to adapt to the rapidly evolving nature of stablecoins.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Australia’s Regulatory Framework for Stablecoins

Australia’s current regulatory framework for stablecoins is fragmented and relies primarily on existing payments laws, particularly the Stored-Value Facility (SVF) regime. The SVF regime regulates entities that issue and manage stored-value facilities, which are defined as facilities that allow users to store value and make payments. Stablecoins that meet the definition of an SVF are subject to licensing and regulatory requirements, including capital requirements, reserve management, and consumer protection.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) plays a key role in overseeing stablecoin issuers that are classified as SVFs. APRA is responsible for ensuring that these entities maintain adequate capital and liquidity to meet their obligations to users. However, the SVF regime may not be entirely suitable for regulating all types of stablecoins, particularly those that are crypto-collateralized or algorithmic. These stablecoins may not fit neatly within the definition of an SVF, and the existing regulatory requirements may not adequately address the specific risks they pose.

Furthermore, the lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins in Australia creates uncertainty for issuers and users. This uncertainty can stifle innovation and limit the potential benefits of stablecoins. There is a growing consensus that Australia needs to develop a more tailored and comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins that addresses the specific risks they pose while fostering innovation and competition.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Implications of Australia’s Regulatory Framework

The current regulatory framework in Australia has several implications for stablecoin issuers and users:

• Increased Compliance Costs: Stablecoin issuers that are classified as SVFs face significant compliance costs associated with licensing, capital requirements, and reserve management. These costs can create barriers to entry and limit the number of stablecoin issuers operating in Australia.

• Limited Innovation: The fragmented regulatory framework and uncertainty surrounding the application of existing laws can stifle innovation in the stablecoin space. Issuers may be hesitant to develop new stablecoin products or services due to the lack of clarity regarding regulatory requirements.

• Reduced Competition: The high compliance costs and regulatory uncertainty can reduce competition in the stablecoin market, potentially leading to higher fees and lower quality services for users.

• Consumer Protection Concerns: The lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework can leave consumers vulnerable to risks associated with stablecoins, such as loss of value, fraud, and operational failures.

• Potential for Regulatory Arbitrage: The varying regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions can create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where issuers choose to operate in jurisdictions with less stringent regulations. This can undermine the effectiveness of Australia’s regulatory framework and increase systemic risk.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Recommendations for a More Effective Regulatory Framework

To address the challenges and limitations of the current regulatory framework, Australia should consider adopting a more tailored and comprehensive approach to regulating stablecoins. Some key recommendations include:

• Develop a Clear and Comprehensive Regulatory Framework: The government should develop a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework specifically designed for stablecoins. This framework should address the specific risks associated with different types of stablecoins and provide clear rules for issuers, users, and intermediaries.

• Establish a Licensing Regime: A licensing regime should be established for stablecoin issuers, requiring them to meet minimum capital requirements, reserve management standards, and consumer protection measures.

• Implement Risk-Based Regulation: The regulatory framework should be risk-based, with stricter requirements for stablecoins that pose higher risks to financial stability and consumer protection.

• Promote Innovation and Competition: The regulatory framework should be designed to promote innovation and competition in the stablecoin market, while ensuring that risks are adequately managed.

• Enhance Cross-Border Coordination: Australia should work with other jurisdictions to enhance cross-border coordination on stablecoin regulation, to address the potential for regulatory arbitrage and ensure consistent standards.

• Clarify APRA’s Role: Clarify APRA’s role in regulating stablecoins, particularly in relation to reserve requirements, liquidity management and systemic risk oversight. APRA should be given the power and resources necessary to appropriately supervise stablecoin issuers.

By implementing these recommendations, Australia can create a regulatory environment that fosters innovation, protects consumers, and promotes financial stability in the rapidly evolving world of stablecoins.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

9. Conclusion

Stablecoins represent a significant innovation with the potential to transform the financial landscape. However, their rapid growth and increasing interconnectedness with the broader financial system pose significant risks. Australia’s current regulatory framework, based primarily on existing payments laws, is not adequately equipped to address these risks. A more tailored and comprehensive approach is needed to foster innovation, protect consumers, and promote financial stability. By adopting the recommendations outlined in this report, Australia can position itself as a leader in the responsible development and regulation of stablecoins. The regulatory path is complex, requiring a delicate balance between enabling innovation and mitigating potential systemic risks. Careful consideration of international best practices, adaptation of existing legal frameworks, and ongoing monitoring of the evolving stablecoin ecosystem will be crucial to achieving a successful regulatory outcome.

Many thanks to our sponsor Panxora who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Adrian, T., & Mancini-Griffoli, T. (2019). The rise of digital money. IMF Fintech Notes, 2019(001).
• Auer, R., Cornelli, G., & Frost, J. (2022). Central bank digital currencies: Design principles and balance sheet implications. BIS Working Papers, (101).
• Carstens, A. (2021). Digital currencies and the future of the monetary system. BIS Speeches.
• ECB. (2020). Report on a digital euro. European Central Bank.
• FATF. (2020). Virtual assets – Red flag indicators of money laundering and terrorist financing. Financial Action Task Force.
• FSB. (2022). Assessment of Risks to Financial Stability from Crypto-assets. Financial Stability Board.
• IOSCO. (2020). Issues, Risks and Regulatory Considerations Relating to Crypto-Asset Trading Platforms. International Organization of Securities Commissions.
• President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. (2021). Report on stablecoins. U.S. Department of the Treasury.
• Powell, J. (2021). Testimony Before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives. Federal Reserve Board.
• White, A. (2021). Stablecoins: Growth, regulatory responses, and systemic risk. Congressional Research Service.
• MiCA Regulation: EUR-Lex – 52020PC0593 – EN – EUR-Lex (europa.eu)
• Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) website: www.apra.gov.au