‘No deposit flight’: Galaxy disputes Standard Chartered’s $500B stablecoin risk

ambcryptoОпубликовано 2026-01-28Обновлено 2026-01-28

Введение

Standard Chartered Bank warns that U.S. banks, particularly regional ones, could lose $500 billion in deposits by 2028 due to growing adoption of stablecoins, which they see as a structural risk. The bank also projects the stablecoin market could grow to $2 trillion in the same period. However, Galaxy’s head of research, Alex Thorn, disputes the idea of "deposit flight," arguing that funds would merely "migrate" rather than leave the banking system entirely. He compares it to money market funds, where cash ultimately returns to banks through treasury purchases. The debate highlights ongoing tensions between the crypto and banking industries.

Crypto leaders continue to downplay the perceived risk of stablecoin adoption to traditional banks.

In a recent report, Standard Chartered Bank warned that U.S. banks risk losing $500 billion in deposit outflows by 2028, citing growing stablecoin adoption as a structural risk.

According to the Standard Chartered head of digital asset research, Geoffrey Kendrick, the risk has become more apparent as payments and other core banking activities continue to migrate to on-chain alternatives.

Previously, Kendrick projected that stablecoins could attract $1 trillion from emerging markets over the same period.

Additionally, the bank estimated that the overall stablecoin market could grow to $2 trillion over the same period, suggesting that nearly three-quarters of the boom may come from emerging markets and U.S. banks.

Currently, the stablecoin market cap is above $300 billion.

Galaxy downplays bank fears

However, Galaxy’s head of research, Alex Thorn, dismissed the projection, saying that,

“There is no such thing as deposit flight.”

Drawing parallels to savings accounts and money market funds (MMF), Thorn said,

“Investors have been pulling cash from their ‘savings’ accounts and putting the cash in money market funds for years. But when you invest in an MMF, the fund buys treasuries... where do they buy treasuries? from a seller who takes the cash and... puts it in their bank.”

Similarly, for stablecoins, users’ bank account dollars will end up with the stablecoin issuer, which will eventually buy treasury bonds. The seller of the bonds will then park the cash proceeds in the bank, Thorn added.

He reframed that there won’t be a deposit ‘flight,’ but a ‘migration.’

“There could be some ‘deposit migration,’ if there are banks that do not offer competitive enough services.”

Regional banks at highest risk

According to Kendrick, however, stablecoin adoption will likely impact regional banks that heavily depend on a deposit-funded lending model for interest income (orange).

But diversified (green) and investment banks (yellow) had moderate to low risk to the ‘deposit flight’ fears due to low dependence on interest income.

This was part of the simmering tensions behind the scenes over stablecoin yield that have pitted the crypto and banking industries and threatened to derail the crypto market structure bill.

Although the White House had instructed the parties to reach a ‘compromise’ on the issue to let the bill advance out of the committee vote, progress on this has not yet been made public, as of writing.


Final Thoughts

  • Standard Chartered projected that U.S. regional banks may lose $500 billion in deposits due to the stablecoin boom by 2028.
  • But Galaxy’s Thorn has pushed back against the ‘deposit flight’ framing, claiming that money will just ‘migrate’ to competitive alternatives.

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the main risk to U.S. banks identified by Standard Chartered in its recent report?

AStandard Chartered warned that U.S. banks risk losing $500 billion in deposit outflows by 2028 due to growing stablecoin adoption, which it cited as a structural risk.

QHow does Galaxy's head of research, Alex Thorn, characterize the movement of deposits from banks to stablecoins?

AAlex Thorn reframes the concept, stating there won't be a deposit 'flight' but rather a 'migration,' arguing that the money ultimately cycles back into the banking system when stablecoin issuers buy treasury bonds.

QAccording to the article, which type of banks are at the highest risk from stablecoin adoption?

ARegional banks that heavily rely on a deposit-funded lending model for interest income are identified as being at the highest risk from stablecoin adoption.

QWhat was Geoffrey Kendrick's previous projection regarding stablecoins and emerging markets?

APreviously, Geoffrey Kendrick projected that stablecoins could attract $1 trillion from emerging markets by 2028.

QWhat is the current estimated size of the stablecoin market, and what is its projected growth by 2028 according to the report?

AThe current stablecoin market cap is above $300 billion, and Standard Chartered estimated it could grow to $2 trillion by 2028.

Похожее

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 News1 ч. назад

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

Foresight News1 ч. назад

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 News1 ч. назад

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

Foresight News1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片