BIS: Stablecoins still do not meet the attributes of currency, or threaten the monetary sovereignty of emerging markets.

The Bank for International Settlements stated in its "2026 Annual Economic Report" that stablecoins still have significant deficiencies in core monetary attributes such as uniformity, resilience, interoperability, and integrity. Their price may deviate from the pegged asset, redemption faces friction, and they are closer to ETF shares than genuine payment instruments. The report estimates that even if the stablecoin market expands to between $1 trillion and $3 trillion, the net impact on economic output would still be limited, and it could push up bank funding costs and weaken credit supply. The report also warns that emerging markets may experience "stablecoin dollarization," where residents hold dollar-pegged stablecoins as a store of value, thereby affecting capital flows and undermining monetary sovereignty. The BIS once again proposed a tokenized "Unified Ledger" system anchored by central bank currency as an alternative to stablecoins. (The Block)
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 4
  • 2
  • Share
Comment
Add a comment
Add a comment
HaiyanColdWallet
· 2h ago
Stablecoins are like ETF shares rather than payment tools—this analogy is quite accurate. Redemption friction and price deviation are indeed persistent problems, but can a unified ledger solve them?
View OriginalReply0
ReflectiveChainShadow
· 3h ago
The BIS report pretty much trashed stablecoins across the board—lack of uniformity, flexibility, and interoperability—and ended with the usual pitch for its own Unified Ledger. Same old routine.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-0fdb3438
· 4h ago
A scale of 1 trillion to 3 trillion has limited impact on economic output? Isn't that conclusion a bit premature? Haven't the multiplier effects from improved payment efficiency been factored in?
View OriginalReply0