Regulatory Contradictions: The Stablecoin Innovation Dilemma
BGIN Block #12 - Stablecoin Challenges
Key Takeaways:
Regulatory responses to stablecoin risks have been shaped by past crises rather than forward-looking design
Algorithmic stablecoins face disproportionate restrictions compared to centralized alternatives
Current regulatory frameworks contain contradictions that impede innovation
AML/CTF enforcement faces significant gaps beyond issuers and exchanges
Multi-stakeholder dialogue is crucial to developing more nuanced regulatory approaches
The Evolution of Stablecoin Regulation
BGIN Block #12 in Tokyo explored the complex and rapidly evolving landscape of stablecoin regulations worldwide, revealing a patchwork of reactive policies shaped by past failures. As one participant observed:
"Stablecoin regulation has been driven by fear rather than understanding. After Terra-Luna's collapse, algorithmic stablecoins became politically toxic, with regulators opting to ban them entirely rather than developing frameworks to manage their unique risks."
Three Phases of Stablecoin Evolution
The session outlined the historical trajectory that has shaped today's regulatory environment:
1. Early Era (Pre-2019)
Minimal regulatory attention despite emergence of Tether, USDC, and DAI
Focus primarily on AML/CFT, tax compliance, and property status
Innovation flourished in regulatory vacuum
2. The Libra Catalyst (2019-2021)
Facebook's Libra project triggered unprecedented regulatory scrutiny
Fears of BigTech disrupting traditional monetary policy
COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption and demand for stablecoins
3. Post-Crisis Era (2022-Present)
Terra/Luna collapse brought fundamental risks into focus
Regulators worldwide rushed to implement protective frameworks
Emerging divide between treatment of algorithmic vs. fully-backed stablecoins
As one regulatory expert noted:
"The Terra collapse became a 'told-you-so' moment for critics and pushed even crypto-friendly jurisdictions to tighten controls around stablecoin designs."
Regulatory Convergence
Analysis of major regulatory frameworks like EU's MiCA and Dubai's VARA revealed striking similarities:
Prohibition of rehypothecation of reserve assets
Ban on interest payments to stablecoin holders
Mandatory third-party audits
White paper approval requirements
Asset segregation and liquidity mandates
Full backing with high-quality, low-risk assets
The Regulatory Paradox
The discussion highlighted several contradictions and inconsistencies in current regulatory approaches:
Bias Against Algorithmic Design "Why are algorithmic designs penalized when they potentially offer more transparency and programmable compliance than traditional models? The blanket bans seem to target the wrong aspect of the failed projects."
Redemption Rights Reality "Even USDC, widely considered compliant, doesn't offer universal redemption. Only authorized partners can redeem tokens directly. This creates an unacknowledged two-tier system that regulations don't properly address."
The Liquidity Contradiction "Regulations simultaneously demand full redemption capabilities while allowing issuers to invest reserve assets in instruments that aren't instantly liquid. This fundamental tension remains unresolved."
Money-Making Constraints "By prohibiting fees, regulators inadvertently force stablecoin issuers to generate income by investing reserves, potentially introducing more risk into the system."
The Payment Dilemma "Stablecoins are inherently designed as payment instruments, yet MiCA and other frameworks actively discourage or limit their use for exactly this purpose, especially for non-local currency stablecoins."
Emerging Challenges in Compliance
Deloitte Japan presented research highlighting critical gaps in the current AML/CFT landscape:
Focus primarily on issuers and exchanges while neglecting other ecosystem participants
Lack of solutions for merchant and point-of-sale compliance
Increasing use of stablecoins in money laundering due to liquidity advantages
Absence of clear global frameworks for asset freezing and blacklisting
Tension between technical capability to freeze assets and regulatory authority to order freezes
As one compliance expert noted:
“The entire stablecoin value chain needs attention – from issuers through payment processors to merchants – but current regulatory frameworks primarily focus on entry and exit points."
The Accountability Question
A fundamental question emerged about algorithmic stablecoins created entirely through smart contracts:
"If a stablecoin has no central issuer but is governed entirely by code, who is accountable under current legal frameworks? This parallels challenges in regulating self-driving cars and AI systems."
Some participants argued that smart contracts could potentially offer greater trust and compliance than human issuers, yet regulations still favor centralized, identifiable entities – potentially stifling innovation in fully decentralized models.
BGIN's Unique Role
The session highlighted BGIN's potential to bridge gaps between regulators and developers:
Facilitating Direct Dialogue: Creating forums where algorithmic stablecoin developers can engage directly with regulators
Documenting Q&A Exchanges: Publishing questions and regulatory responses as a form of multi-stakeholder dialogue
Highlighting Under-Discussed Topics: Bringing attention to prudential regulation, cyber risks, and other under-explored areas
Promoting Nuanced Classifications: Developing frameworks that distinguish between different stablecoin designs based on their specific risk profiles
Path Forward
The workshop outlined several critical areas requiring further attention:
Nuanced Classification Systems: Developing more sophisticated taxonomies for different stablecoin models
Cross-Border Supervision: Addressing gaps in regulating foreign stablecoins used within jurisdictions
Consistent Capital Requirements: Aligning prudential standards for stablecoin issuers with those of similar financial services
Risk-Proportional Regulation: Creating frameworks that match regulatory burden to actual risk profiles
Embedded Supervision: Exploring blockchain-native compliance mechanisms that leverage the technology's transparency
Get Involved
The stablecoin regulatory landscape continues to evolve rapidly, requiring diverse perspectives to develop effective, innovation-friendly frameworks. BGIN invites stablecoin developers, regulators, compliance professionals, and users to contribute to this critical work.
This blog post is based on discussions from BGIN Block #12, Tokyo, Japan, March 3, 2025.
For more information about BGIN and upcoming events, visit [BGIN]
Join the conversation on our forum & Working Group Calls