Stablecoin Regulation Risks: Concerns About Systemic Risk and Financial Stability

Introduction to Stablecoins and the Evolving Regulatory Landscape

Stablecoins, a class of cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a stable value relative to a reference asset, typically a fiat currency like the US dollar, have emerged as a significant component of the digital asset ecosystem. Their promise of price stability distinguishes them from other more volatile cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, making them attractive for use in payments, trading, and as a store of value within the crypto space. This perceived stability, however, belies a complex web of risks, particularly concerning systemic risk and financial stability, which have increasingly drawn the attention of global regulators.

The allure of stablecoins stems from their potential to bridge the gap between traditional finance and the burgeoning world of decentralized finance (DeFi). They offer the speed and efficiency of blockchain technology while mitigating the price volatility associated with other cryptocurrencies, theoretically enabling faster and cheaper transactions, especially in cross-border payments. Furthermore, stablecoins are integral to the functioning of many cryptocurrency exchanges and DeFi platforms, serving as a primary medium of exchange and providing liquidity within these markets. As of late 2023, the total market capitalization of stablecoins exceeded $120 billion, with Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) dominating the market, accounting for a significant majority of this value (CoinMarketCap, 2023). This substantial market size and their growing interconnectedness with both the crypto and traditional financial systems underscore the importance of understanding and mitigating the risks they pose.

However, the mechanisms employed by stablecoins to maintain their peg to fiat currencies are diverse and not without inherent vulnerabilities. Stablecoins can be broadly categorized into fiat-backed, crypto-backed, algorithmic, and commodity-backed types, each with its own risk profile. Fiat-backed stablecoins, the most prevalent type, are theoretically backed 1:1 by reserves of fiat currency or near-cash equivalents held in custody. Examples include USDT and USDC. Crypto-backed stablecoins, such as DAI, are collateralized by other cryptocurrencies. These are often over-collateralized to account for the volatility of the underlying crypto assets. Algorithmic stablecoins attempt to maintain their peg through complex algorithms and smart contracts that adjust the supply of the stablecoin in response to price fluctuations. These have proven to be particularly fragile and susceptible to de-pegging events, as evidenced by the collapse of TerraUSD (UST) in 2022. Commodity-backed stablecoins are less common and are backed by physical assets like gold or other precious metals.

The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the stablecoin market have presented significant challenges for regulators worldwide. Initially, stablecoins operated largely outside the traditional regulatory perimeter, but their expanding scale and potential impact on the broader financial system have prompted a global regulatory reckoning. Concerns about consumer protection, money laundering, illicit finance, and, crucially, systemic risk and financial stability have driven regulators to develop frameworks for oversight and control. This regulatory landscape is still evolving, with jurisdictions at varying stages of developing and implementing rules for stablecoins. The lack of a globally harmonized regulatory approach further complicates the oversight of these inherently cross-border digital assets. The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has emphasized the need for robust regulation and supervision of stablecoins, particularly those with the potential to become systemically important payment systems (FSB, 2022). Similarly, institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) have highlighted the potential risks and called for proactive regulatory measures.

Systemic Risk Concerns Arising from Stablecoin Operations

Systemic risk, in the context of stablecoins, refers to the potential for distress or failure in the stablecoin ecosystem to trigger broader disruptions across the financial system. This risk is amplified by the scale of the stablecoin market, its interconnectedness with other parts of the crypto ecosystem and traditional finance, and the opacity and vulnerabilities inherent in some stablecoin designs and operational practices. Several channels through which stablecoins could contribute to systemic risk have been identified and are increasingly scrutinized by regulators.

One primary concern is the risk of contagion. Stablecoins, particularly fiat-backed stablecoins, rely on maintaining confidence in their peg to the reference fiat currency. This confidence is contingent on the belief that the stablecoin issuer holds sufficient and liquid reserves to honor redemption requests at par value. If doubts arise about the quality, quantity, or accessibility of these reserves, a "run" on the stablecoin could ensue, where holders rush to redeem their stablecoins. Such a run could trigger a liquidity crisis for the stablecoin issuer, potentially leading to a disorderly collapse. Furthermore, because stablecoins are widely used in crypto trading and DeFi, a significant stablecoin de-pegging or failure could have cascading effects across the crypto ecosystem, impacting trading platforms, lending protocols, and other DeFi applications. The collapse of TerraUSD (UST) in May 2022 vividly illustrated this contagion risk. UST, an algorithmic stablecoin, experienced a rapid de-pegging event, leading to a massive loss of value and triggering significant turmoil across the broader crypto market. This event resulted in an estimated $60 billion wipeout in crypto market capitalization in a matter of days (Chainalysis, 2022).

Beyond the crypto ecosystem, stablecoins could also transmit shocks to traditional financial markets. Fiat-backed stablecoin issuers typically invest their reserves in a range of assets, including commercial paper, government bonds, and money market funds. As of mid-2023, stablecoin reserves were estimated to hold billions of dollars in short-term debt instruments, including a significant portion in commercial paper (JP Morgan, 2023). A large-scale run on a major stablecoin could force the issuer to liquidate these reserve assets rapidly to meet redemption demands. This fire sale of assets, particularly in less liquid markets like commercial paper, could depress asset prices and create stress in short-term funding markets. This risk is particularly pronounced if multiple stablecoin issuers face redemption pressures simultaneously, or if the reserve assets are concentrated in specific issuers or asset classes. The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG), along with the FDIC and OCC, in its 2021 report on stablecoins, highlighted the potential for stablecoin runs to destabilize short-term funding markets, drawing parallels to risks associated with prime money market funds (PWG, FDIC, OCC, 2021).

Another systemic risk concern stems from concentration risk. The stablecoin market is highly concentrated, with a few issuers dominating the vast majority of the market share. Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) together account for over 80% of the total stablecoin market capitalization (CoinMarketCap, 2023). This concentration means that the failure of one or both of these dominant stablecoins could have severe repercussions for the entire crypto ecosystem and potentially spill over into traditional finance. Operational failures, cybersecurity breaches, or regulatory actions targeting these major issuers could trigger widespread instability. Furthermore, the concentration of stablecoin reserves in a limited number of custodians and banks also raises concerns about operational resilience and counterparty risk. If a custodian holding a significant portion of stablecoin reserves were to experience operational problems or financial distress, it could disrupt the stablecoin's operations and erode confidence.

Liquidity risk is another critical systemic risk factor associated with stablecoins. While fiat-backed stablecoins are supposed to be highly liquid, the actual liquidity of their reserves and their ability to meet redemption demands in stressed market conditions is not always assured. The composition of stablecoin reserves is often opaque, and there have been concerns about the quality and liquidity of some reserve assets, particularly in the case of Tether. While USDC has generally been considered more transparent and holding higher-quality reserves, even reserves composed of government bonds and cash equivalents may face liquidity challenges in extreme market stress scenarios. If stablecoin issuers are unable to quickly liquidate their reserves at par value to meet redemption requests, it could lead to a liquidity mismatch and exacerbate a run on the stablecoin. Furthermore, the on-chain liquidity of stablecoins in DeFi markets can also be fragile. Large redemptions or market turbulence can deplete liquidity pools and lead to price slippage, further amplifying market volatility.

Finally, interoperability and interconnectedness within the stablecoin ecosystem and between stablecoins and other financial entities can also contribute to systemic risk. Stablecoins are often used across multiple blockchain networks and trading platforms, and they are increasingly integrated with traditional financial infrastructure through partnerships with banks and payment processors. This interconnectedness, while enhancing efficiency and accessibility, also creates channels for risk transmission. A problem originating in one part of the stablecoin ecosystem can quickly propagate to other parts and potentially affect connected traditional financial institutions. The lack of standardized protocols and regulatory frameworks across different jurisdictions further complicates the management of these interconnected risks.

Financial Stability Risks Posed by Stablecoin Proliferation

Beyond systemic risk, stablecoins also pose a range of risks specifically to financial stability, encompassing threats to payment systems, monetary policy implementation, market integrity, and investor protection. These risks are particularly salient given the potential for stablecoins to become widely adopted as a form of digital money and their increasing integration into the broader financial landscape.

One of the most significant financial stability concerns is the potential impact of stablecoins on payment systems. Stablecoins are designed to facilitate faster and cheaper payments, and if they achieve widespread adoption, they could become a significant part of the retail and wholesale payment infrastructure. However, the operational and regulatory vulnerabilities of stablecoins raise concerns about the safety and efficiency of payment systems. A large-scale stablecoin failure could disrupt payment flows and erode public confidence in digital payments. Furthermore, the use of stablecoins in cross-border payments, while offering potential benefits, also raises challenges for international regulatory coordination and the enforcement of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) standards. The G7 Working Group on Stablecoins has emphasized the need to ensure that stablecoins used for payments are subject to appropriate regulatory oversight and meet high operational and resilience standards (G7, 2021).

Stablecoins also present challenges for monetary policy implementation. If stablecoins become widely used as a medium of exchange and store of value, they could potentially affect the demand for central bank money and the transmission of monetary policy. In jurisdictions where stablecoin adoption becomes significant, it could complicate central banks' ability to control inflation and manage interest rates. Furthermore, the potential for stablecoins to operate outside of traditional banking channels and regulatory frameworks could weaken the effectiveness of monetary policy tools. Some central banks are exploring the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) as a potential response to the challenges posed by stablecoins and other private digital currencies. CBDCs could offer the benefits of digital money while being directly backed and controlled by the central bank, potentially mitigating some of the financial stability risks associated with private stablecoins. A study by the Bank of England found that widespread adoption of stablecoins could lead to a reduction in commercial bank deposits and potentially impact banks' profitability and lending capacity (Bank of England, 2022).

Market integrity is another area of concern in the context of stablecoins. The crypto markets in which stablecoins operate are often characterized by lower levels of regulatory oversight and investor protection compared to traditional financial markets. This creates opportunities for market manipulation, insider trading, and other illicit activities involving stablecoins. The lack of transparency in some stablecoin operations, particularly regarding reserve composition and auditing practices, further exacerbates these risks. Concerns have been raised about the potential for stablecoins to be used for money laundering and illicit finance due to their pseudonymous nature and cross-border transferability. Strengthening regulatory frameworks for crypto markets and stablecoins is crucial to enhance market integrity and protect investors from fraud and manipulation. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued guidance on the application of its standards to virtual assets and virtual asset service providers, including stablecoin issuers, to combat money laundering and terrorist financing (FATF, 2020).

Investor protection is a paramount concern given the retail participation in the stablecoin market. Many retail investors may not fully understand the risks associated with stablecoins, particularly the potential for de-pegging, reserve inadequacies, and operational failures. The lack of deposit insurance or similar protection mechanisms for stablecoins means that investors could face significant losses if a stablecoin issuer fails. Clear and comprehensive disclosure requirements, robust consumer education initiatives, and appropriate regulatory safeguards are necessary to protect retail investors in the stablecoin market. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States has emphasized the need for investor protection in the crypto market and has brought enforcement actions against crypto firms for unregistered securities offerings and other violations (SEC, 2023).

Furthermore, the operational risks associated with stablecoins are significant. Stablecoin systems rely on complex technological infrastructure, including blockchain networks, smart contracts, and custody solutions. These systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks, operational errors, and technological failures, which could disrupt stablecoin operations and lead to financial losses. Ensuring the operational resilience of stablecoin systems through robust cybersecurity measures, business continuity planning, and regulatory oversight is crucial for maintaining financial stability. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) has highlighted operational risk as a key concern for banks engaging with crypto assets and stablecoins and has emphasized the need for enhanced risk management frameworks (BCBS, 2022).

Finally, the governance of stablecoin arrangements is also a critical factor influencing financial stability risks. Many stablecoin issuers operate under opaque governance structures with limited accountability. Weak governance practices can increase the risk of mismanagement, fraud, and operational failures. Establishing clear governance standards for stablecoin issuers, including requirements for independent audits, risk management frameworks, and board oversight, is essential to mitigate these risks and promote financial stability. Regulatory frameworks should address governance arrangements to ensure that stablecoin issuers are subject to appropriate levels of accountability and oversight.

Regulatory Approaches and Challenges in Overseeing Stablecoins

The development of effective regulatory frameworks for stablecoins is a complex and evolving process, with jurisdictions around the world taking different approaches. The primary goal of regulation is to mitigate the risks posed by stablecoins to systemic risk and financial stability while allowing for responsible innovation in the digital asset space. However, achieving this balance presents significant challenges, particularly given the cross-border nature of stablecoins and the rapid pace of technological change.

One key challenge is defining the regulatory perimeter for stablecoins. Depending on their design and operation, stablecoins can exhibit characteristics of various regulated financial activities, such as banking, payment services, securities, and investment funds. Regulators are grappling with how to classify stablecoins within existing regulatory frameworks or whether to create new bespoke regulations. In the United States, for example, there is ongoing debate about whether stablecoins should be regulated as securities, commodities, or payment instruments. The SEC has taken the position that some stablecoins may be securities, particularly those that are marketed as investment opportunities. Other regulatory agencies, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and banking regulators, also have a potential role in overseeing stablecoins depending on their specific characteristics. The European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, expected to come into full effect in 2024, provides a comprehensive framework for regulating crypto assets, including stablecoins, across the EU member states. MiCA categorizes stablecoins into "asset-referenced tokens" and "e-money tokens" and sets out specific requirements for issuers, including capital requirements, operational standards, and consumer protection measures.

Another critical aspect of stablecoin regulation is addressing the risks associated with stablecoin reserves. As fiat-backed stablecoins are supposed to be backed by reserves of fiat currency or near-cash equivalents, regulators are focused on ensuring the quality, liquidity, and segregation of these reserves. Requirements for reserve composition, custody arrangements, and independent audits are being considered or implemented in various jurisdictions. The PWG report in the US recommended that stablecoin issuers should be required to hold reserves composed of low-risk, liquid assets and be subject to robust supervisory oversight. Some jurisdictions are considering requiring stablecoin issuers to hold reserves entirely in central bank money or to have access to central bank liquidity facilities. This would aim to enhance the safety and liquidity of stablecoin reserves and reduce systemic risk. The UK Treasury, in its consultation on cryptoasset regulation, proposed that stablecoin issuers should meet minimum capital and liquidity requirements and be subject to prudential supervision (HM Treasury, 2023).

Operational resilience and cybersecurity are also key areas of regulatory focus for stablecoins. Given the reliance of stablecoin systems on complex technology, regulators are emphasizing the need for robust operational risk management frameworks and cybersecurity measures. Requirements for business continuity planning, incident response, and regular security audits are being considered. Furthermore, regulators are paying attention to the governance arrangements of stablecoin issuers. Requirements for fit and proper management, independent board oversight, and transparent governance structures are seen as essential for promoting responsible stablecoin operations. The MiCA regulation in the EU includes detailed provisions on the governance of crypto-asset service providers, including stablecoin issuers.

International regulatory cooperation is crucial for effectively overseeing stablecoins, given their cross-border nature. The FSB, the IMF, and other international bodies are working to promote global coordination on stablecoin regulation and supervision. The FSB has issued recommendations for the regulation, supervision, and oversight of "global stablecoin" arrangements, emphasizing the need for international cooperation and information sharing. However, achieving global harmonization of stablecoin regulation is a complex undertaking, given the differing legal frameworks and regulatory priorities across jurisdictions. Fragmentation in regulatory approaches could lead to regulatory arbitrage and hinder the development of a safe and efficient global stablecoin ecosystem.

Innovation and fostering responsible development are also important considerations in stablecoin regulation. While mitigating risks is paramount, regulators also recognize the potential benefits of stablecoins and want to avoid stifling innovation. Regulatory frameworks should be designed to be risk-based and proportionate, allowing for experimentation and innovation within a well-defined regulatory perimeter. Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs can play a useful role in allowing stablecoin issuers to test new products and services in a controlled environment under regulatory supervision. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has established a regulatory sandbox to encourage fintech innovation, including in the area of digital assets and stablecoins (MAS, 2023).

Finally, enforcement and supervision are critical for ensuring the effectiveness of stablecoin regulation. Regulators need to have the necessary powers and resources to supervise stablecoin issuers, monitor market developments, and enforce regulatory requirements. Effective enforcement requires cross-border cooperation and information sharing, as stablecoin issuers may operate across multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, regulators need to adapt their supervisory approaches to the rapidly evolving nature of the stablecoin market and the underlying technology. Supervisory technology (SupTech) tools and data analytics can play an increasingly important role in monitoring stablecoin activities and identifying potential risks.

Empirical Evidence and Case Studies: Lessons from Stablecoin Events

While the regulatory landscape for stablecoins is still developing, several events in the stablecoin market have provided empirical evidence of the risks and vulnerabilities associated with these digital assets and offer valuable lessons for regulators and market participants. These events, ranging from minor de-pegging incidents to major collapses, underscore the importance of robust regulation and supervision to mitigate systemic risk and protect financial stability.

The most prominent case study is the collapse of TerraUSD (UST) in May 2022. UST was an algorithmic stablecoin that aimed to maintain its peg to the US dollar through a complex mechanism involving its sister token, LUNA. In early May 2022, UST experienced a severe de-pegging event, triggered by large withdrawals from the Anchor Protocol, a DeFi platform that offered high yields on UST deposits. As the price of UST began to fall below $1, the algorithmic mechanism designed to restore the peg failed to function effectively, leading to a death spiral. Investors rushed to redeem their UST, and the price plummeted to near zero within days, wiping out billions of dollars in value. The collapse of UST had significant contagion effects across the crypto market, contributing to a broader market downturn and highlighting the risks associated with algorithmic stablecoins and the fragility of DeFi ecosystems. Research by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) analyzed the UST collapse and concluded that it demonstrated the inherent instability of algorithmic stablecoins and the potential for rapid and widespread contagion in crypto markets (BIS, 2023).

Another notable case is the de-pegging of Tether (USDT) in the aftermath of the Terra/LUNA collapse. Although USDT is a fiat-backed stablecoin, it has faced persistent questions about the composition and liquidity of its reserves and its transparency. In May 2022, amidst the broader crypto market turmoil triggered by UST, USDT briefly de-pegged to as low as $0.95 on some exchanges. While USDT eventually recovered its peg, this event demonstrated the vulnerability of even fiat-backed stablecoins to de-pegging pressures during periods of market stress. The USDT de-pegging also highlighted the importance of transparency regarding stablecoin reserves and the need for robust redemption mechanisms. Data from CryptoCompare showed a significant increase in USDT trading volume during the de-pegging event, indicating heightened market volatility and investor uncertainty (CryptoCompare, 2022).

Beyond these major events, there have been numerous instances of smaller stablecoins experiencing de-pegging events or operational issues. These incidents, while less impactful on the overall market, further illustrate the inherent risks and operational challenges associated with stablecoins. A study by the IMF analyzed a sample of stablecoin de-pegging events and found that de-pegging incidents are often triggered by market stress, reserve concerns, or operational failures (IMF, 2022). These events underscore the need for robust regulatory oversight across the entire spectrum of stablecoins, not just the largest ones.

Furthermore, empirical analysis of stablecoin trading volumes and market capitalization data provides insights into the growing importance of stablecoins in the crypto ecosystem and their potential impact on financial stability. Data from CoinMarketCap and CoinGecko show a significant increase in stablecoin market capitalization and trading volumes in recent years, particularly during periods of crypto market growth. This data indicates the increasing reliance of the crypto market on stablecoins as a medium of exchange and store of value. Analysis of on-chain transaction data also reveals the widespread use of stablecoins in DeFi protocols and crypto exchanges, highlighting their interconnectedness with other parts of the crypto ecosystem. Research by Chainalysis has tracked the flow of stablecoins across different blockchain networks and DeFi platforms, providing valuable data for understanding stablecoin usage patterns and potential risk transmission channels (Chainalysis, 2023).

Regulatory enforcement actions against stablecoin issuers also provide empirical evidence of the risks and regulatory concerns. The SEC and other regulatory agencies have brought enforcement actions against crypto firms, including stablecoin issuers, for alleged violations of securities laws and other regulations. These enforcement actions highlight the regulatory scrutiny that stablecoins are facing and the potential for legal and regulatory risks to impact stablecoin operations. For example, the New York Attorney General reached a settlement with Tether and Bitfinex in 2021 over allegations of misrepresenting the backing of USDT and concealing losses. This case underscored the importance of transparency and accurate disclosures by stablecoin issuers.

These empirical examples and case studies collectively demonstrate the real-world risks associated with stablecoins and reinforce the need for proactive and comprehensive regulation. The lessons learned from these events are informing the ongoing development of regulatory frameworks for stablecoins globally, with a focus on mitigating systemic risk, protecting financial stability, and ensuring investor protection. The experiences with UST, USDT, and other stablecoin incidents have highlighted the vulnerabilities of different stablecoin designs, the importance of reserve quality and transparency, the potential for contagion, and the need for robust operational and governance standards.

Conclusion: Navigating the Future of Stablecoin Regulation and Financial Stability

Stablecoins represent a rapidly evolving and increasingly significant part of the digital asset landscape, offering potential benefits for payments, trading, and financial innovation. However, their growth and complexity also pose substantial risks to systemic risk and financial stability, necessitating careful regulatory attention and proactive risk management. The concerns surrounding stablecoins are multifaceted, ranging from the potential for runs and contagion to risks to payment systems, monetary policy, market integrity, and investor protection.

The key to navigating the future of stablecoin regulation lies in striking a balance between mitigating these risks and fostering responsible innovation. Overly restrictive regulation could stifle the potential benefits of stablecoins and drive activity to less regulated jurisdictions. Conversely, inadequate regulation could leave the financial system vulnerable to the risks posed by these digital assets. A risk-based and proportionate regulatory approach is essential, tailoring requirements to the specific risks posed by different types of stablecoins and their use cases.

Global regulatory coordination and harmonization are crucial for effectively overseeing stablecoins, given their cross-border nature. The FSB, IMF, and other international bodies are playing a vital role in promoting international cooperation and developing common regulatory principles. However, achieving full harmonization will be a long and complex process, requiring ongoing dialogue and collaboration among jurisdictions. In the interim, enhanced information sharing and supervisory cooperation are essential to address cross-border risks and prevent regulatory arbitrage.

Transparency and disclosure are paramount for building trust and confidence in stablecoins. Stablecoin issuers need to provide clear and comprehensive information about their reserve composition, auditing practices, and operational risks. Enhanced transparency will allow market participants and regulators to better assess the risks associated with stablecoins and make informed decisions. Furthermore, robust consumer education initiatives are needed to ensure that investors understand the risks and limitations of stablecoins.

Technological innovation and regulatory adaptation must go hand in hand. The stablecoin market is constantly evolving, with new designs, use cases, and technological developments emerging rapidly. Regulators need to be agile and adapt their frameworks to keep pace with these changes. Embracing SupTech tools and data analytics can enhance regulatory oversight and improve risk monitoring in the stablecoin market. Furthermore, regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs can facilitate dialogue between regulators and innovators and promote responsible development of stablecoin technologies.

Ultimately, the successful integration of stablecoins into the financial system will depend on effective regulation, robust risk management, and ongoing collaboration between regulators, industry participants, and researchers. By addressing the systemic risk and financial stability concerns proactively and thoughtfully, policymakers can harness the potential benefits of stablecoins while safeguarding the integrity and resilience of the financial system. The future of stablecoin regulation will likely involve a combination of tailored rules for stablecoin issuers, enhanced supervision of reserve assets, robust operational and governance standards, and international cooperation to ensure a safe, efficient, and innovative digital asset ecosystem. The ongoing evolution of the regulatory landscape will be critical in shaping the trajectory of stablecoins and their impact on the future of finance.

References

• Bank for International Settlements (BIS). (2023). "The Crypto Winter of 2022-2023: Macroprudential Perspectives." BIS Bulletin No. 68.
• Bank of England. (2022). "The macrofinancial implications of stablecoins." Financial Stability Paper No. 50.
• Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). (2022). "Prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures."
• Chainalysis. (2022). "The Terra LUNA Crash: What Happened and What's Next." Chainalysis Blog.
• Chainalysis. (2023). "The 2023 Geography of Cryptocurrency Report."
• CoinGecko. (2023). https://www.coingecko.com
• CoinMarketCap. (2023). https://coinmarketcap.com
• CryptoCompare. (2022). "May 2022 Exchange Review."
• Financial Action Task Force (FATF). (2020). "Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers: Updated Guidance for a Risk-Based Approach."
• Financial Stability Board (FSB). (2022). "Regulation, Supervision and Oversight of Crypto-assets."
• G7. (2021). "G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ Statement on Central Bank Digital Currencies and Stablecoins."
• HM Treasury. (2023). "The Future Financial Services Regulatory Regime for Cryptoassets: Consultation and Call for Evidence."
• International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2022). "Regulating Crypto: The Case of Stablecoins." IMF Fintech Note 2022/004.
• JP Morgan. (2023). "Digital Assets: Stablecoins - A Primer." JP Morgan Research.
• Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). (2023). "FinTech Regulatory Sandbox." https://www.mas.gov.sg/schemes-and-initiatives/fintech-regulatory-sandbox
• President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). (2021). "Report on Stablecoins."
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2023). https://www.sec.gov

🚀 Unlock 20% Off Trading Fees – Forever! 🔥

Join one of the world’s most secure and trusted global crypto exchanges and enjoy a lifetime 20% discount on trading fees!

Join now!