$1 Trillion Expected To Flow From Banks To Stablecoins In Next 3 Years, Standard Chartered

bitcoinist2025-10-08 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-10-08 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

A new report from Standard Chartered highlights the significant growth potential of US dollar-backed stablecoins, predicting that this trend could...

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

A new report from Standard Chartered highlights the significant growth potential of US dollar-backed stablecoins, predicting that this trend could result in a transfer of up to $1 trillion from banks in emerging economies over the next few years. 

This so-called “boom,” fueled by a new regulatory dawn for the broader digital asset market in the US under President Donald Trump’s administration, is making stablecoins increasingly attractive, particularly in regions vulnerable to currency crises.

Stablecoins As Savings Could Surge To $1.2 Trillion 

Currently, nearly 99% of stablecoins are pegged to the US dollar, effectively transforming them into dollar-denominated bank accounts. This characteristic is particularly attractive for individuals and businesses in countries where economic instability has historically led to significant losses in savings. 

According to Standard Chartered, the desire to safeguard capital amid global economic uncertainties will drive many to favor stablecoin wallets over traditional banking institutions.

In a report published this week, the bank noted, “We see the potential for $1 trillion to leave emerging market banks and move into stablecoins in the next three years.” 

This shift reflects a trend where individuals prioritize the preservation of their capital over the potential for earning returns, which is encapsulated in the phrase, “Return of capital matters more than return on capital.”

Despite new US regulations designed to curb this deposit flight—by restricting US-compliant stablecoin issuers from offering direct yields akin to bank interest—Standard Chartered argues that the allure of stablecoins will persist in emerging markets. 

The bank projects that the use of stablecoins as a savings mechanism in these regions could grow dramatically, increasing from approximately $173 billion today to an estimated $1.22 trillion by the end of 2028.

Potential Impact On Traditional Banks

While this projected figure is significant, analysts emphasize that it would still account for only about 2% of total bank deposits in 16 countries deemed “high-risk” for such capital flight. 

These nations include Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, all of which have recently experienced currency devaluations, as well as Kenya, Morocco, and other emerging economies like Turkey, India, China, Brazil, and South Africa.

The report highlights that many of these countries, with the notable exception of China, suffer from twin deficits that make them particularly susceptible to global risk aversion and sudden currency depreciation

As such, the increasing migration of deposits into stablecoins could pose serious challenges to the stability of traditional banking systems in these regions.

Stablecoins
The 1D chart shows the total crypto market cap retrace after reaching a new record just near $4.3 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

Ronaldo is a seasoned crypto enthusiast with over four years of experience in the field. He is passionate about exploring the vast and dynamic world of decentralized finance (DeFi) and its practical applications for achieving economic sovereignty. Ronaldo is constantly seeking to expand his knowledge and expertise in the DeFi space, as he believes it holds tremendous potential for transforming the traditional financial landscape.

İlgili Okumalar

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

Editor's Note: As AI Agents become cheaper and easier to use, a new constraint emerges: the cost isn't in launching more Agents, but in the human attention required to manage, judge, and integrate their outputs. This hidden cost is called the "orchestration tax." The article argues that a developer's cognitive bandwidth is the key bottleneck—a serial, non-parallelizable resource akin to a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL). While many Agents can run concurrently, their results ultimately require human judgment for review, conflict resolution, and final integration. Therefore, more Agents don't automatically mean higher productivity; they can simply create longer queues, lead to cognitive fatigue, and create the illusion of busyness without real output. The core solution is to design workflows around this scarce human attention. Key strategies include: scaling the number of Agents to match review capacity (not UI capacity), categorizing tasks (delegating independent ones, keeping complex judgment-heavy ones serial), batch reviewing results to minimize context-switching costs, automating verifiable checks to reserve human judgment for critical decisions, and protecting focused, uninterrupted thinking time. Ultimately, the critical skill is not launching many Agents, but architecting systems that respect the fundamental limit of human attention. Unpaid "orchestration tax" accumulates as both technical and cognitive debt, undermining system understanding and quality. True productivity comes from thoughtfully managing the single-threaded resource—your focus.

marsbit57 dk önce

Why More AI Agents Does Not Equal Higher Productivity?

marsbit57 dk önce

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit7 saat önce

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit7 saat önce

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手10 saat önce

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手10 saat önce

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit10 saat önce

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit10 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片