1. What Are Stablecoins?
Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value by pegging themselves to a reserve asset, typically a fiat currency like the US dollar. Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, which can experience dramatic price swings, stablecoins aim to provide the benefits of digital currency without the price volatility.
The most common types of stablecoins include:
Fiat collateralized stablecoins are backed by traditional currencies held in reserve at a 1:1 ratio. Examples include Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC), which maintain reserves in US dollars or dollar equivalent assets.
Crypto collateralized stablecoins use other cryptocurrencies as collateral, often over collateralized to account for volatility. DAI is a prominent example, backed by Ethereum and other crypto assets.
Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to maintain their peg through automated supply adjustments based on market demand, without traditional collateral backing. These have proven to be the most controversial and risky category.
2. Why Do Stablecoins Exist?
Stablecoins emerged to solve several critical problems in both traditional finance and the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
In the crypto world, they provide a stable store of value and medium of exchange. Traders use stablecoins to move in and out of volatile positions without converting back to fiat currency, avoiding the delays and fees associated with traditional banking. They serve as a safe harbor during market turbulence and enable seamless transactions across different blockchain platforms.
For cross border payments and remittances, stablecoins offer significant advantages over traditional methods. International transfers that typically take days and cost substantial fees can be completed in minutes for a fraction of the cost. This makes them particularly valuable for workers sending money to families in other countries or businesses conducting international trade.
Stablecoins also address financial inclusion challenges. In countries with unstable currencies or limited banking infrastructure, they provide access to a stable digital currency that can be held and transferred using just a smartphone. This opens up financial services to the unbanked and underbanked populations worldwide.
3. How Do Stablecoins Make Money?
Stablecoin issuers have developed several revenue models that can be remarkably profitable.
The primary revenue source for fiat backed stablecoins is interest on reserves. When issuers hold billions of dollars in US Treasury bills or other interest bearing assets backing their stablecoins, they earn substantial returns. For instance, with interest rates at 5%, a stablecoin issuer with $100 billion in reserves could generate $5 billion annually while still maintaining the 1:1 peg. Users typically receive no interest on their stablecoin holdings, allowing issuers to pocket the entire yield.
Transaction fees represent another revenue stream. While often minimal, the sheer volume of stablecoin transactions generates significant income. Some issuers charge fees for minting (creating) or redeeming stablecoins, particularly for large institutional transactions.
Premium services for institutional clients provide additional revenue. Banks, payment processors, and large enterprises often pay for faster settlement, higher transaction limits, dedicated support, and integration services.
Many stablecoin platforms also generate revenue through their broader ecosystem. This includes charging fees on decentralized exchanges, lending protocols, or other financial services built around the stablecoin.
3.1 The Pendle Revenue Model: Yield Trading Innovation
Pendle represents an innovative evolution in the DeFi stablecoin ecosystem through its yield trading protocol. Rather than issuing stablecoins directly, Pendle creates markets for trading future yield on stablecoin deposits and other interest bearing assets.
The Pendle revenue model operates through several mechanisms. The protocol charges trading fees on its automated market makers (AMMs), typically around 0.1% to 0.3% per swap. When users trade yield tokens on Pendle’s platform, a portion of these fees goes to the protocol treasury while another portion rewards liquidity providers who supply capital to the trading pools.
Pendle’s unique approach involves splitting interest bearing tokens into two components: the principal token (PT) representing the underlying asset, and the yield token (YT) representing the future interest. This separation allows sophisticated users to speculate on interest rates, hedge yield exposure, or lock in fixed returns on their stablecoin holdings.
The protocol generates revenue through swap fees, redemption fees when tokens mature, and potential governance token value capture as the protocol grows. This model demonstrates how stablecoin adjacent services can create profitable businesses by adding layers of financial sophistication on top of basic stablecoin infrastructure. Pendle particularly benefits during periods of high interest rates, when demand for yield trading increases and the potential returns from separating yield rights become more valuable.
4. Security and Fraud Concerns
Stablecoins face several critical security and fraud challenges that potential users and regulators must consider.
Reserve transparency and verification remain the most significant concern. Issuers must prove they actually hold the assets backing their stablecoins. Several controversies have erupted when stablecoin companies failed to provide clear, audited proof of reserves. The risk is that an issuer might not have sufficient backing, leading to a bank run scenario where the peg collapses and users cannot redeem their coins.
Smart contract vulnerabilities pose technical risks. Stablecoins built on blockchain platforms rely on code that, if flawed, can be exploited by hackers. Major hacks have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and once stolen, blockchain transactions are typically irreversible.
Regulatory uncertainty creates ongoing challenges. Different jurisdictions treat stablecoins differently, and the lack of clear, consistent regulation creates risks for both issuers and users. There’s potential for sudden regulatory action that could freeze assets or shut down operations.
Counterparty risk is inherent in centralized stablecoins. Users must trust the issuing company to maintain reserves, operate honestly, and remain solvent. If the company fails or acts fraudulently, users may lose their funds with limited recourse.
The algorithmic stablecoin model has proven particularly vulnerable. The catastrophic collapse of TerraUSD in 2022, which lost over $40 billion in value, demonstrated that algorithmic mechanisms can fail spectacularly under market stress, creating devastating losses for holders.
Money laundering and sanctions evasion concerns have drawn regulatory scrutiny. The pseudonymous nature of cryptocurrency transactions makes stablecoins attractive for illicit finance, though blockchain’s transparent ledger also makes transactions traceable with proper tools and cooperation.
4.1 Monitoring Stablecoin Flows
Effective monitoring of stablecoin flows has become critical for financial institutions, regulators, and the issuers themselves to ensure compliance, detect fraud, and understand market dynamics.
On Chain Analytics Tools provide the foundation for stablecoin monitoring. Since most stablecoins operate on public blockchains, every transaction is recorded and traceable. Companies like Chainalysis, Elliptic, and TRM Labs specialize in blockchain analytics, offering platforms that track stablecoin movements across wallets and exchanges. These tools can identify patterns, flag suspicious activities, and trace funds through complex transaction chains.
Real Time Transaction Monitoring systems alert institutions to potentially problematic flows. These systems track large transfers, unusual transaction patterns, rapid movement between exchanges (potentially indicating wash trading or manipulation), and interactions with known illicit addresses. Financial institutions integrating stablecoins must implement monitoring comparable to traditional payment systems.
Wallet Clustering and Entity Attribution techniques help identify the real world entities behind blockchain addresses. By analyzing transaction patterns, timing, and common input addresses, analytics firms can cluster related wallets and often attribute them to specific exchanges, services, or even individuals. This capability is crucial for understanding who holds stablecoins and where they’re being used.
Reserve Monitoring and Attestation focuses on the issuer side. Independent auditors and blockchain analysis firms track the total supply of stablecoins and verify that corresponding reserves exist. Circle, for instance, publishes monthly attestations from accounting firms. Some advanced monitoring systems provide real time transparency by linking on chain supply data with bank account verification.
Cross Chain Tracking has become essential as stablecoins exist across multiple blockchains. USDC and USDT operate on Ethereum, Tron, Solana, and other chains, requiring monitoring solutions that aggregate data across these ecosystems to provide a complete picture of flows.
Market Intelligence and Risk Assessment platforms combine on chain data with off chain information to assess concentration risk, identify potential market manipulation, and provide early warning of potential instability. When a small number of addresses hold large stablecoin positions, it creates systemic risk that monitoring can help quantify.
Banks and financial institutions implementing stablecoins typically deploy a combination of commercial blockchain analytics platforms, custom monitoring systems, and compliance teams trained in cryptocurrency investigation. The goal is achieving the same level of financial crime prevention and risk management that exists in traditional banking while adapting to the unique characteristics of blockchain technology.
5. How Regulators View Stablecoins
Regulatory attitudes toward stablecoins vary significantly across jurisdictions, but common themes and concerns have emerged globally.
United States Regulatory Approach involves multiple agencies with overlapping jurisdictions. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken the position that some stablecoins may be securities, particularly those offering yield or governed by investment contracts. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) views certain stablecoins as commodities. The Treasury Department and the Financial Stability Oversight Council have identified stablecoins as potential systemic risks requiring bank like regulation.
Proposed legislation in the US Congress has sought to create a comprehensive framework requiring stablecoin issuers to maintain high quality liquid reserves, submit to regular audits, and potentially obtain banking charters or trust company licenses. The regulatory preference is clearly toward treating major stablecoin issuers as financial institutions subject to banking supervision.
European Union Regulation has taken a more structured approach through the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation, which came into effect in 2024. MiCA establishes clear requirements for stablecoin issuers including reserve asset quality standards, redemption rights for holders, capital requirements, and governance standards. The regulation distinguishes between smaller stablecoin operations and “significant” stablecoins that require more stringent oversight due to their systemic importance.
United Kingdom Regulators are developing a framework that treats stablecoins used for payments as similar to traditional payment systems. The Bank of England and Financial Conduct Authority have indicated that stablecoin issuers should meet standards comparable to commercial banks, including holding reserves in central bank accounts or high quality government securities.
Asian Regulatory Perspectives vary widely. Singapore’s Monetary Authority has created a licensing regime for stablecoin issuers focused on reserve management and redemption guarantees. Hong Kong is developing similar frameworks. China has banned private stablecoins entirely while developing its own central bank digital currency. Japan requires stablecoin issuers to be licensed banks or trust companies.
Key Regulatory Concerns consistently include systemic risk (the failure of a major stablecoin could trigger broader financial instability), consumer protection (ensuring holders can redeem stablecoins for fiat currency), anti money laundering compliance, reserve adequacy and quality, concentration risk in the Treasury market (if stablecoin reserves significantly increase holdings of government securities), and the potential for stablecoins to facilitate capital flight or undermine monetary policy.
Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) represent a regulatory response to private stablecoins. Many central banks are developing or piloting digital currencies partly to provide a public alternative to private stablecoins, allowing governments to maintain monetary sovereignty while capturing the benefits of digital currency.
The regulatory trend is clearly toward treating stablecoins as systemically important financial infrastructure requiring oversight comparable to banks or payment systems, with an emphasis on reserve quality, redemption rights, and anti money laundering compliance.
5.1 How Stablecoins Impact the Correspondent Banking Model
Stablecoins pose both opportunities and existential challenges to the traditional correspondent banking system that has dominated international payments for decades.
The Traditional Correspondent Banking Model relies on a network of banking relationships where banks hold accounts with each other to facilitate international transfers. When a business in Brazil wants to pay a supplier in Thailand, the payment typically flows through multiple intermediary banks, each taking fees and adding delays. This system involves currency conversion, compliance checks at multiple points, and settlement risk, making international payments slow and expensive.
Stablecoins as Direct Competition offer a fundamentally different model. A business can send USDC directly to a recipient anywhere in the world in minutes, bypassing the correspondent banking network entirely. The recipient can then convert to local currency through a local exchange or payment processor. This disintermediation threatens the fee generating correspondent banking relationships that have been profitable for banks, particularly in remittance corridors and business to business payments.
Cost and Speed Advantages are significant. Traditional correspondent banking involves fees at multiple layers, often totaling 3-7% for remittances and 1-3% for business payments, with settlement taking 1-5 days. Stablecoin transfers can cost less than 1% including conversion fees, with settlement in minutes. This efficiency gap puts pressure on banks to either adopt stablecoin technology or risk losing payment volume.
The Disintermediation Threat extends beyond just payments. Correspondent banking generates substantial revenue for major international banks through foreign exchange spreads, service fees, and liquidity management. If businesses and individuals can hold and transfer value in stablecoins, they become less dependent on banks for international transactions. This is particularly threatening in high volume, low margin corridors where efficiency matters most.
Banks Adapting Through Integration represents one response to this threat. Rather than being displaced, some banks are incorporating stablecoins into their service offerings. They can issue their own stablecoins, partner with stablecoin issuers to provide on ramps and off ramps, or offer custody and transaction services for corporate clients wanting to use stablecoins. JPMorgan’s JPM Coin exemplifies this approach, using blockchain technology and stablecoin principles for institutional payments within a bank controlled system.
The Hybrid Model Emerging in practice combines stablecoins with traditional banking. Banks provide the fiat on ramps and off ramps, regulatory compliance, customer relationships, and local currency conversion, while stablecoins handle the actual transfer of value. This partnership model allows banks to maintain their customer relationships and regulatory compliance role while capturing efficiency gains from blockchain technology.
Regulatory Arbitrage Concerns arise because stablecoins can sometimes operate with less regulatory burden than traditional correspondent banking. Banks face extensive anti money laundering requirements, capital requirements, and regulatory scrutiny. If stablecoins provide similar services with lighter regulation, they gain a competitive advantage that regulators are increasingly seeking to eliminate through tighter stablecoin oversight.
Settlement Risk and Liquidity Management change fundamentally with stablecoins. Traditional correspondent banking requires banks to maintain nostro accounts (accounts held in foreign banks) prefunded with liquidity. Stablecoins allow for near instant settlement without prefunding requirements, potentially freeing up billions in trapped liquidity that banks currently must maintain across the correspondent network.
The long term impact will likely involve correspondent banking evolving rather than disappearing. Banks will increasingly serve as regulated gateways between fiat currency and stablecoins, while stablecoins handle the actual transfer of value. The most vulnerable players are mid tier correspondent banks that primarily provide routing services without strong customer relationships or value added services.
5.2 How FATF Standards Apply to Stablecoins
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) provides international standards for combating money laundering and terrorist financing, and these standards have been extended to cover stablecoins and other virtual assets.
The Travel Rule represents the most significant FATF requirement affecting stablecoins. Originally designed for traditional wire transfers, the Travel Rule requires that information about the originator and beneficiary of transfers above a certain threshold (typically $1,000) must travel with the transaction. For stablecoins, this means that Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) such as exchanges, wallet providers, and payment processors must collect and transmit customer information when facilitating stablecoin transfers.
Implementing the Travel Rule on public blockchains creates technical challenges. While bank wire transfers pass through controlled systems where information can be attached, blockchain transactions are peer to peer and pseudonymous. The industry has developed solutions like the Travel Rule Information Sharing Architecture (TRISA) and other protocols that allow VASPs to exchange customer information securely off chain while the stablecoin transaction occurs on chain.
Know Your Customer (KYC) and Customer Due Diligence requirements apply to any entity that provides services for stablecoin transactions. Exchanges, wallet providers, and payment processors must verify customer identities, assess risk levels, and maintain records of transactions. This requirement creates a tension with the permissionless nature of blockchain technology, where anyone can hold a self hosted wallet and transact directly without intermediaries.
VASP Registration and Licensing is required in most jurisdictions following FATF guidance. Any business providing stablecoin custody, exchange, or transfer services must register with financial authorities, implement anti money laundering programs, and submit to regulatory oversight. This has created significant compliance burdens for smaller operators and driven consolidation toward larger, well capitalized platforms.
Stablecoin Issuers as VASPs are generally classified as Virtual Asset Service Providers under FATF standards, subjecting them to the full range of anti money laundering and counter terrorist financing obligations. This includes transaction monitoring, suspicious activity reporting, and sanctions screening. Major issuers like Circle and Paxos have built sophisticated compliance programs comparable to traditional financial institutions.
The Self Hosted Wallet Challenge represents a key friction point. FATF has expressed concern about transactions involving self hosted (non custodial) wallets where users control their own private keys without intermediary oversight. Some jurisdictions have proposed restricting or requiring enhanced due diligence for transactions between VASPs and self hosted wallets, though this remains controversial and difficult to enforce technically.
Cross Border Coordination is essential but challenging. Stablecoins operate globally and instantly, but regulatory enforcement is jurisdictional. FATF promotes information sharing between national financial intelligence units and encourages mutual legal assistance. However, gaps in enforcement across jurisdictions create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, where bad actors operate from jurisdictions with weak oversight.
Sanctions Screening is mandatory for stablecoin service providers. They must screen transactions against lists of sanctioned individuals, entities, and countries maintained by organizations like the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Several stablecoin issuers have demonstrated the ability to freeze funds in wallets associated with sanctioned addresses, showing that even decentralized systems can implement centralized controls when required by law.
Risk Based Approach is fundamental to FATF methodology. Service providers must assess the money laundering and terrorist financing risks specific to their operations and implement controls proportionate to those risks. For stablecoins, this means considering factors like transaction volumes, customer types, geographic exposure, and the underlying blockchain’s anonymity features.
Challenges in Implementation are significant. The pseudonymous nature of blockchain transactions makes it difficult to identify ultimate beneficial owners. The speed and global reach of stablecoin transfers compress the time window for intervention. The prevalence of decentralized exchanges and peer to peer transactions creates enforcement gaps. Some argue that excessive regulation will drive activity to unregulated platforms or privacy focused cryptocurrencies, making financial crime harder rather than easier to detect.
The FATF framework essentially attempts to impose traditional financial system controls on a technology designed to operate without intermediaries. While large, regulated stablecoin platforms can implement these requirements, the tension between regulatory compliance and the permissionless nature of blockchain technology remains unresolved and continues to drive both technological innovation and regulatory evolution.
6. Good Use Cases for Stablecoins
Despite the risks, stablecoins excel in several legitimate applications that offer clear advantages over traditional alternatives.
Cross border payments and remittances benefit enormously from stablecoins. Workers sending money home can avoid high fees and long delays, with transactions settling in minutes rather than days. Businesses conducting international trade can reduce costs and streamline operations significantly.
Treasury management for crypto native companies provides a practical use case. Cryptocurrency exchanges, blockchain projects, and Web3 companies need stable assets for operations while staying within the crypto ecosystem. Stablecoins let them hold working capital without exposure to crypto volatility.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) applications rely heavily on stablecoins. They enable lending and borrowing, yield farming, liquidity provision, and trading without the complications of volatile assets. Users can earn interest on stablecoin deposits or use them as collateral for loans.
Hedging against local currency instability makes stablecoins valuable in countries experiencing hyperinflation or currency crises. Citizens can preserve purchasing power by holding dollar backed stablecoins instead of rapidly devalating local currencies.
Programmable payments and smart contracts benefit from stablecoins. Businesses can automate payments based on conditions (such as releasing funds when goods are received) or create subscription services, escrow arrangements, and other complex payment structures that execute automatically.
Ecommerce and online payments increasingly accept stablecoins as they combine the low fees of cryptocurrency with price stability. This is particularly valuable for digital goods, online services, and merchant payments where volatility would be problematic.
6.1 Companies Specializing in Banking Stablecoin Integration
Several companies have emerged as leaders in helping traditional banks launch and integrate stablecoin solutions into their existing infrastructure.
Paxos is a regulated blockchain infrastructure company that provides white label stablecoin solutions for financial institutions. They’ve partnered with major companies to issue stablecoins and offer compliance focused infrastructure that meets banking regulatory requirements. Paxos handles the technical complexity while allowing banks to maintain their customer relationships.
Circle offers comprehensive business account services and APIs that enable banks to integrate USD Coin (USDC) into their platforms. Their developer friendly tools and banking partnerships have made them a go to provider for institutions wanting to offer stablecoin services. Circle emphasizes regulatory compliance and transparency with regular reserve attestations.
Fireblocks provides institutional grade infrastructure for banks looking to offer digital asset services, including stablecoins. Their platform handles custody, treasury operations, and connectivity to various blockchains, allowing banks to offer stablecoin functionality without building everything from scratch.
Taurus specializes in digital asset infrastructure for banks, wealth managers, and other financial institutions in Europe. They provide technology for custody, tokenization, and trading that enables traditional financial institutions to offer stablecoin services within existing regulatory frameworks.
Sygnum operates as a Swiss digital asset bank and offers banking as a service solutions. They help other banks integrate digital assets including stablecoins while ensuring compliance with Swiss banking regulations. Their approach combines traditional banking security with blockchain innovation.
Ripple has expanded beyond its cryptocurrency focus to offer enterprise blockchain solutions for banks, including infrastructure for stablecoin issuance and cross border payment solutions. Their partnerships with financial institutions worldwide position them as a bridge between traditional banking and blockchain technology.
BBVA and JPMorgan have also developed proprietary solutions (JPM Coin for JPMorgan) that other institutions might license or use as models, though these are typically more focused on their own operations and select partners.
7.1 The Bid Offer Spread Challenge: Liquidity vs. True 1:1 Conversions
One of the hidden costs in stablecoin adoption that significantly impacts user economics is the bid offer spread applied during conversions between fiat currency and stablecoins. While stablecoins are designed to maintain a 1:1 peg with their underlying asset (typically the US dollar), the reality of converting between fiat and crypto introduces market dynamics that can erode this theoretical parity.
7.1 Understanding the Spread Problem
When users convert fiat currency to stablecoins or vice versa through most platforms, they encounter a bid offer spread the difference between the buying price and selling price. Even though USDC or USDT theoretically equals $1.00, a platform might effectively charge $1.008 to buy a stablecoin and offer only $0.992 when selling it back. This 0.8% to 1.5% spread represents a significant friction cost, particularly for businesses making frequent conversions or moving large amounts.
This spread exists because most platforms operate market making models where they must maintain liquidity on both sides of the transaction. Holding inventory of both fiat and stablecoins involves costs: capital tied up in reserves, exposure to brief depegging events, regulatory compliance overhead, and the operational expense of managing banking relationships for fiat on ramps and off ramps. Platforms traditionally recover these costs through the spread rather than explicit fees.
For cryptocurrency exchanges and most fintech platforms, the spread also serves as their primary revenue mechanism for stablecoin conversions. When a platform facilitates thousands or millions of conversions daily, even small spreads generate substantial income. The spread compensates for the risk that during periods of market stress, stablecoins might temporarily trade below their peg, leaving the platform holding depreciated assets.
7.2 The Impact on Users and Business Operations
The cumulative effect of bid offer spreads becomes particularly painful for certain use cases. Small and medium sized businesses operating across borders face multiple conversion points: exchanging local currency to USD, converting USD to stablecoins for cross border transfer, then converting stablecoins back to USD or local currency at the destination. Each conversion compounds the cost, potentially consuming 2% to 4% of the transaction value when combined with traditional banking fees.
For businesses using stablecoins as working capital converting payroll, managing treasury operations, or settling international invoices the spread can eliminate much of the cost advantage that stablecoins are supposed to provide over traditional correspondent banking. A company converting $100,000 might effectively pay $1,500 in spread costs on a round trip conversion, comparable to traditional wire transfer fees that stablecoins aimed to disrupt.
Individual users in countries with unstable currencies face similar challenges. While holding USDT or USDC protects against local currency devaluation, the cost of frequently moving between local currency and stablecoins can be prohibitive. The spread becomes a “tax” on financial stability that disproportionately affects those who can least afford it.
7.3 Revolut’s 1:1 Model: Internalizing the Cost
Revolut’s recent introduction of true 1:1 conversions between USD and stablecoins (USDC and USDT) represents a fundamentally different approach to solving the spread problem. Rather than passing market making costs to users, Revolut absorbs the spread internally, guaranteeing that $1.00 in fiat equals exactly 1.00 stablecoin units in both directions, with no hidden markups.
This model is economically viable for Revolut because of several structural advantages. First, as a neobank with 65 million users and existing banking infrastructure, Revolut already maintains substantial fiat currency liquidity and doesn’t need to rely on external banking partners for every stablecoin conversion. Second, the company generates revenue from other services within its ecosystem subscription fees, interchange fees from card spending, interest on deposits allowing it to treat stablecoin conversions as a loss leader or break even feature that enhances customer retention and platform stickiness.
Third, by setting a monthly limit of approximately $578,000 per customer, Revolut manages its risk exposure while still accommodating the vast majority of retail and small business use cases. This prevents arbitrage traders from exploiting the zero spread model to make risk free profits by moving large volumes between Revolut and other platforms where spreads exist.
Revolut essentially bets that the value of removing friction from fiat crypto conversions thereby making stablecoins genuinely useful as working capital rather than speculative assets will drive sufficient user engagement and platform growth to justify the cost of eliminating spreads. For users, this transforms the economics of stablecoin usage, particularly for frequent converters or those operating in high currency volatility environments.
7.4 Why Not Everyone Can Offer 1:1 Conversions
The challenge for smaller platforms and pure cryptocurrency exchanges is that they lack Revolut’s structural advantages. A standalone crypto exchange without banking licenses and integrated fiat services must partner with banks for fiat on ramps, pay fees to those partners, maintain separate liquidity pools, and manage the regulatory complexity of operating in multiple jurisdictions. These costs don’t disappear simply because users want better rates they must be recovered somehow.
Additionally, maintaining tight spreads or true 1:1 conversions requires deep liquidity and sophisticated risk management. When thousands of users simultaneously want to exit stablecoins during market stress, a platform must have sufficient reserves to honor redemptions instantly without moving the price. Smaller platforms operating with thin liquidity buffers cannot safely eliminate spreads without risking insolvency during volatile periods.
The market structure for stablecoins also presents challenges. While stablecoins theoretically maintain 1:1 pegs, secondary market prices on decentralized exchanges and between different platforms can vary by small amounts. A platform offering guaranteed 1:1 conversions must either hold sufficient reserves to absorb these variations or accept that arbitrage traders will exploit any price discrepancies, potentially draining liquidity.
7.5 The Competitive Implications
Revolut’s move to zero spread stablecoin conversions could trigger a competitive dynamic in the fintech space, similar to how its original zero fee foreign exchange offering disrupted traditional currency conversion. Established players like Coinbase, Kraken, and other major exchanges will face pressure to reduce their spreads or explain why their costs remain higher.
For traditional banks contemplating stablecoin integration, the spread question becomes strategic. Banks could follow the Revolut model, absorbing spread costs to drive adoption and maintain customer relationships in an increasingly crypto integrated financial system. Alternatively, they might maintain spreads but offer other value added services that justify the cost, such as enhanced compliance, insurance on holdings, or integration with business treasury management systems.
The long term outcome may be market segmentation. Large, integrated fintech platforms with diverse revenue streams can offer true 1:1 conversions as a competitive advantage. Smaller, specialized platforms will continue operating with spreads but may differentiate through speed, blockchain coverage, or serving specific niches like high volume traders who value depth of liquidity over tight spreads.
For stablecoin issuers like Circle and Tether, the spread dynamics affect their business indirectly. Wider spreads on third party platforms create friction that slows stablecoin adoption, reducing the total assets under management that generate interest income for issuers. Partnerships with platforms offering tighter spreads or true 1:1 conversions could accelerate growth, even if those partnerships involve revenue sharing or other commercial arrangements.
Ultimately, the bid offer spread challenge highlights a fundamental tension in stablecoin economics: the gap between the theoretical promise of 1:1 value stability and the practical costs of maintaining liquidity, managing risk, and operating the infrastructure that connects fiat currency to blockchain based assets. Platforms that can bridge this gap efficiently whether through scale, integration, or innovative business models will have significant competitive advantages as stablecoins move from crypto native use cases into mainstream financial infrastructure.
8. Conclusion
Stablecoins represent a significant innovation in digital finance, offering the benefits of cryptocurrency without extreme volatility. They’ve found genuine utility in payments, remittances, and decentralized finance while generating substantial revenue for issuers through interest on reserves. However, they also carry real risks around reserve transparency, regulatory uncertainty, and potential fraud that users and institutions must carefully consider.
The regulatory landscape is rapidly evolving, with authorities worldwide moving toward treating stablecoins as systemically important financial infrastructure requiring bank like oversight. FATF standards impose traditional anti money laundering requirements on stablecoin service providers, creating compliance obligations comparable to traditional finance. Meanwhile, sophisticated monitoring tools have emerged to track flows, detect illicit activity, and ensure reserve adequacy.
For traditional banks, stablecoins represent both a competitive threat to correspondent banking models and an opportunity to modernize payment infrastructure. Rather than being displaced entirely, banks are increasingly positioning themselves as regulated gateways between fiat currency and stablecoins, maintaining customer relationships and compliance functions while leveraging blockchain efficiency.
For banks considering stablecoin integration, working with established infrastructure providers can mitigate technical and compliance challenges. The key is choosing use cases where stablecoins offer clear advantages, particularly in cross border payments and treasury management, while implementing robust risk management, transaction monitoring, and ensuring regulatory compliance with both traditional financial regulations and emerging crypto specific frameworks.
As the regulatory landscape evolves and technology matures, stablecoins are likely to become increasingly integrated into mainstream financial services. Their success will depend on maintaining trust through transparency, security, and regulatory cooperation while continuing to deliver value that traditional financial rails cannot match. The future likely involves a hybrid model where stablecoins and traditional banking coexist, each playing to their respective strengths in a more efficient, global financial system.
