Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.
Stablecoins have quickly grown into a prominent market, but that doesn’t mean their staying power has stopped being questioned. The Bank for International Settlements recently brought this matter up once again, with its new report claiming stablecoins fail at three crucial criteria that any good money must satisfy: singleness, elasticity, and integrity. But personally, I can’t quite agree with that assessment.
Summary
- BIS critique vs. reality: The Bank for International Settlements claims stablecoins fail at singleness, elasticity, and integrity — but the argument overlooks how these apply in practice.
- Singleness isn’t absolute: Like bank deposits during crises (e.g., SVB), stablecoins can temporarily deviate, but USDC/USDT still redeem 1:1 and function when banks are closed.
- Elasticity is different, not absent: Banks rely on settlement delays to create liquidity, while stablecoins settle instantly. Mechanisms like flash loans show that elasticity can be coded in.
- Integrity cuts both ways: Banks stop less than 1% of illicit flows, while blockchain transparency enables better tracing and even recovery of stolen funds.
- Work in progress, not failure: Stablecoins don’t need to mimic banks — they just need to preserve value, move efficiently, and maintain trust, often doing so in ways banks can’t.
Admittedly, stablecoins aren’t perfect. Despite achieving considerable growth, the market is still small compared to traditional banking, and predictions about its future advancement have already been dialed back lately. JPMorgan, for example, now sees the stablecoin market reaching $500 billion by 2028 — down by half compared to the trillion-dollar projections that s
Go to Source to See Full Article
Author: Guest Post
