Publikovat
Ji Kim
Ji Kim
The WSJ considers whether stablecoins, as "private money," need to follow the same regulatory path as banks. As Faryar points out, this framing misses the structural point-- 90% of M2 is already privately issued. The right question is whether regulation matches the risk. For stablecoins: no lending, no leverage, no fractional reserve. 1:1 cash and Treasuries by statute. GENIUS got that calibration right. CLARITY will do the same for broader market structure and for growing U.S.-regulated payment stablecoins.
Faryar Shirzad 🛡️
Faryar Shirzad 🛡️
A piece from @greg_ip in @WSJ today asks whether stablecoins are a risk to the economy because they are "private money." It's a fair question, but the framing skips over how the US monetary system has actually worked for 160 years. "Private money" isn't the exception in our system — it's the rule. Roughly 90% of M2 is privately issued: commercial bank deposits and money market fund shares. Each carries different risks and is regulated commensurately — banks by Basel, capital, FDIC, and stress testing; MMFs by SEC liquidity rules; and now GENIUS stablecoins by a purpose-built federal regime. The right question isn't "public or private." It's whether the regulation matches the risk. GENIUS does.

Zřeknutí se odpovědnosti: Obsah v síti OKX Orbit je poskytován pouze pro informační účely. Další informace

Odpovědi

Zatím žádné komentáře. Odpovězte jako první!