Ripple Exec Pushes Central Banks To Back Regulated Stablecoins

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-01-20Última atualização em 2026-01-20

Resumo

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

Perguntas 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.

Leituras Relacionadas

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

MicroStrategy's Debt Risk: A Turning Point in the "Never Sell" Strategy As of June 3, 2026, MicroStrategy holds 843,706 bitcoins (valued at ~$53.1B) but faces significant financial obligations. Its capital structure includes $6.75B in convertible notes and $15.48B in perpetual preferred stock (led by the $8.5B STRC series), creating an annual payout burden of ~$1.71B. With software revenue at only ~$500M, interest and dividend obligations far exceed operating income. A critical shift occurred in late May 2026 when the company sold 32 bitcoins for ~$2.5M to cover dividends, breaking CEO Michael Saylor's long-standing "never sell" pledge. This symbolic move triggered a sharp decline in both Bitcoin's price and MSTR stock, reflecting market fears about cash flow sustainability. The core of the strain is the STRC perpetual preferred stock, designed as a "permanent loan" with no maturity date but requiring high monthly dividends (currently 11.5%). Its business model relies on a three-part cycle: issuing new STRC shares, using proceeds to buy more Bitcoin and fund a USD reserve, and using that reserve to pay dividends. This cycle depends on continuous investor demand for STRC and Bitcoin's price appreciation. Analysis shows Bitcoin needs to appreciate at least 2.3% annually to cover the $1.71B in yearly obligations at current holdings. With Bitcoin price down ~22% from March 2026 highs, this pressure has intensified. The company's $900M USD reserve can only cover about 7 months of payments if STRC issuance stalls. Key risks are not immediate bankruptcy or forced Bitcoin liquidation (as BTC is not collateral), but rather: 1) The erosion of MSTR's premium to its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV), which would cripple its ability to raise cheap capital; 2) A vicious cycle where stagnant Bitcoin prices reduce STRC demand, draining the USD reserve and forcing BTC sales, further depressing prices. The period from February 2027 to September 2028 is a crucial test, with over $5.9B in convertible notes facing put options or maturity. In essence, MicroStrategy has evolved from a simple Bitcoin holder into a complex financial entity acting like a "private Bitcoin bank," leveraging its BTC holdings to create layered financial products. Its survival depends on maintaining Bitcoin's price trend, its stock premium, and market appetite for its preferred shares. The recent token sale marks not a betrayal of its Bitcoin thesis, but an admission that the leveraged strategy must eventually be paid for.

marsbitHá 9m

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

marsbitHá 9m

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

Anthropic has published an article titled "When AI builds itself," discussing the emerging concept of "recursive self-improvement," where AI begins to actively participate in designing, training, testing, and optimizing its own subsequent versions. The company presents internal data showing that by May 2026, over 80% of code merged into its codebase was written by Claude, its AI model. Claude's capabilities have expanded to handling complex, open-ended engineering tasks, achieving a 76% success rate in such areas, and even contributing to research processes, such as optimizing code performance and conducting AI safety experiments. Anthropic outlines an evolution from human-driven development to AI-assisted workflows, culminating in the current stage where AI agents can autonomously write, run, and delegate code. The company cautions that the path toward a "closed loop," where AI continuously improves itself, is becoming visible. It calls for coordinated global mechanisms to potentially slow or pause frontier AI development to allow safety research and societal structures to catch up. However, the timing of this warning coincides with Anthropic's preparations for an IPO, framing the narrative not just as a safety concern but also as a demonstration of Claude's advanced capabilities and its integral role in accelerating Anthropic's own R&D—creating a potential "flywheel" effect for competitive advantage. This contrasts with OpenAI's recent, more policy-oriented discussion of the same risks, highlighting the competitive dynamics in the AI industry as companies position themselves in both the technological and regulatory landscape.

marsbitHá 1h

Anthropic Cries Wolf: Is the AGI Threat Real, or Just an IPO Story?

marsbitHá 1h

BIT Research: ETF Purchases Have Slowed, Strategy (MicroStrategy) Has Slowed, What Else Can Drive Bitcoin's Rise?

Market Refocus on Inflation and Rate Expectations Weighs on Bitcoin Currently, the market is in a phase of macro-repricing dominated by inflation and interest rate expectations. Bitcoin, which previously benefited from easy liquidity and low inflation, is seeing its core bullish drivers weaken. These drivers were market expectations for interest rate cuts and strong inflows from Bitcoin ETFs and institutions like MicroStrategy (referred to as "Strategy" in the text). The logic has shifted. Recent high inflation data (e.g., CPI hitting 3.8% in a May 2026 report) has caused the market to sharply reduce its rate cut expectations for 2025 and even price in potential hikes. This is a key constraint for Bitcoin, as it lacks cash flows and is highly sensitive to rate expectations. Concurrently, institutional capital flows have slowed significantly. Following the hot CPI data, Bitcoin ETFs saw accelerated outflows, with around $4.3 billion leaving over a period. MicroStrategy's ability to keep adding substantial Bitcoin to its balance sheet is also diminishing. Together, ETF and MicroStrategy holdings total roughly $110 billion, but their momentum as growth engines is cooling. In summary, Bitcoin's current pressure stems not from its own fundamentals but from a changing macro environment. As long as inflation stays elevated, Bitcoin is likely to remain in a consolidating phase. However, historically, inflation eventually peaks. Once it recedes and rate cut expectations rebuild, institutional capital could return, potentially fueling a new and more robust recovery phase for Bitcoin.

marsbitHá 1h

BIT Research: ETF Purchases Have Slowed, Strategy (MicroStrategy) Has Slowed, What Else Can Drive Bitcoin's Rise?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片