Ripple Exec Pushes Central Banks To Back Regulated Stablecoins

bitcoinistPublicado a 2026-01-20Actualizado a 2026-01-20

Resumen

Ripple's UK & Europe policy director, Matthew Osborne, urges central banks to embrace regulated stablecoins as a stabilizing force rather than treat them as a threat. He argues that with proper oversight and access to official infrastructure, stablecoins can complement the existing financial system, particularly in cross-border payments and multi-chain markets. Osborne cites their growing adoption, with market value exceeding $300 billion and transaction volumes surpassing Visa and Mastercard combined. He calls for central banks to extend safety net features, such as allowing issuers to hold reserves in central bank accounts and providing liquidity insurance, to reduce vulnerability to shocks. The choice, he concludes, is between resisting stablecoins and risking uncontrolled growth or integrating them into the regulated financial framework.

Ripple’s UK & Europe policy director Matthew Osborne is urging central banks to stop treating stablecoins as an external threat and instead fold well-regulated issuers into core safeguards, arguing that oversight plus access to official infrastructure can make stablecoins a net stabiliser for payments and settlement.

Writing for the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum on 19 January 2026, Osborne said stablecoins have moved well beyond a niche experiment, citing a market value “in excess of $300bn” and annual transaction volumes that he wrote now surpass Visa and Mastercard combined. He argued momentum could accelerate in the US after the Genius Act, which he said would introduce federal rules and allow banks to issue stablecoins.

The Ripple exec framed the shift as already visible among central banks themselves. He pointed to the European Central Bank’s recent recognition of stablecoins’ benefits for cross-border payments and its view that tomorrow’s financial system will host multiple forms of money. He also cited the Bank of England’s stance that stablecoins could support “faster, cheaper retail and wholesale payments” as part of a “multi-money” system underpinned by central bank money.

Ripple Exec: Bring Stablecoins Into The Safety Net

At the centre of his case is the claim that stablecoins should be treated as an incremental evolution rather than an adversarial replacement. “Regulated stablecoins could play a key role in financial markets alongside other forms of money,” Osborne wrote. “First, stablecoins are more likely to complement the existing financial system than replace it. This is evolution, not revolution.” He then added: “The solution lies in central banks channelling stablecoin momentum, not fighting it.”

Osborne argues central bank money will remain essential as a risk-free settlement asset and safe store of value, but its relative role could shift in digital markets. He pointed to atomic settlement, where legs of a transaction settle simultaneously and conditionally, as reducing the traditional need to use central bank money purely to mitigate settlement risk.

Where stablecoins could be structurally preferred, he wrote, is in cross-border flows and multi-chain markets. “Cross-border payments are one example, given that stablecoins can move value anywhere in the world in seconds,” the Ripple exec said.

“In contrast, central bank money is likely to be less suitable for cross-border payments given access may be geographically limited and adoption of on-chain central bank money is far from universal around the world.” He also argued stablecoins are likely to exist across more blockchain networks than central bank money, making same-chain settlement between tokenized assets and cash more achievable while interoperability remains uneven.

Central banks have repeatedly warned that stablecoins could pull funds from bank deposits, weakening bank credit creation and potentially amplifying stress events. Osborne pushed back, arguing the risk is overstated because markets already accommodate instruments backed by highly liquid assets, money market funds, e-money, and “narrow banks”, without causing sustained deposit runs.

His bigger point is that regulation, while necessary, is insufficient without a backstop. “But regulation alone is not enough,” Osborne wrote. “Stablecoin issuers lack access to the safety net that gives bank deposits their resilience. Without it, even well-managed stablecoins are more vulnerable to shocks – as seen when USDC temporarily lost its peg following exposure to Silicon Valley Bank in 2023.”

He argued central banks should consider extending elements of that safety net, including allowing well-regulated stablecoin issuers to hold part of their backing assets in central bank accounts, offering liquidity insurance against market-wide shocks, and granting more direct payment-system access to reduce tiering risk.

The Ripple exec closed by positioning the choice for central banks as strategic: resist stablecoins and risk the market scaling beyond official influence, or “bring them inside the tent,” shaping development through prudential oversight and infrastructure access as tokenized settlement rails mature.

At press time, XRP traded at $1.9216.

XRP holds above the 100-week EMA, 1-week chart | Source: XRPUSDT on TradingView.com

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main argument made by Ripple's Matthew Osborne regarding stablecoins and central banks?

AMatthew Osborne argues that central banks should stop treating stablecoins as a threat and instead integrate well-regulated stablecoin issuers into core financial safeguards, as they can act as a net stabilizer for payments and settlement.

QAccording to the article, what recent US legislation could accelerate stablecoin adoption?

AThe article states that stablecoin momentum could accelerate in the US after the Genius Act, which would introduce federal rules and allow banks to issue stablecoins.

QWhat two specific benefits of stablecoins for cross-border payments does Osborne highlight?

AOsborne highlights that stablecoins can move value anywhere in the world in seconds and are likely to exist across more blockchain networks than central bank money, making them more suitable for cross-border flows.

QWhy does Osborne claim that 'regulation alone is not enough' for stablecoins?

AHe claims regulation is insufficient because stablecoin issuers lack access to the safety net (like central bank accounts and liquidity insurance) that gives bank deposits their resilience, making them vulnerable to shocks even if well-managed.

QWhat strategic choice does Osborne present to central banks at the end of his argument?

AHe presents central banks with the choice to either resist stablecoins and risk the market scaling beyond official influence, or to 'bring them inside the tent' by shaping their development through prudential oversight and infrastructure access.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight NewsHace 50 min(s)

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight NewsHace 50 min(s)

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight NewsHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片