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

ambcrypto2026-01-28 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-28 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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.

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

SpaceX's trillion-dollar valuation is built on its three core businesses: Starlink (profitable, 60% of revenue), rockets (driving down launch costs), and AI (a major investment area). This creates a financial cycle: Starlink funds rocket development, which enables low-cost launches for AI hardware, generating future revenue. This cycle fuels annual capital expenditures of tens of billions, flowing to a vast supply chain. Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability. The first group includes irreplaceable players like NVIDIA (GPU/CUDA ecosystem), Eutelsat (critical radio spectrum), Filtronic (specialized amplifiers), Materion (strategic beryllium), and STMicroelectronics (antenna chips). The second group consists of hard-to-replace suppliers due to high switching costs, such as Honeywell (flight control), Carpenter Technology (specialty alloys), Hexcel (carbon fiber), Broadcom (data exchange), and Linde (industrial gases). The third group comprises high-volume, cost-critical suppliers for mass-produced items like Starlink terminals. Key names include Wistron NeWeb (primary manufacturer) and several A-share companies like Shenzhen Sunway (connectors), Pies New Materials (forgings), Western Superconducting (alloys), and Yingliu (castings). Other niche players include Trimble (timing), Astronics (power distribution), and CTS (thermal management). The article argues that investing in these suppliers, rather than SpaceX stock directly, offers an alternative opportunity. The rationale is threefold: procurement is just beginning to scale, SpaceX's IPO brings new transparency to its supply chain, and the situation mirrors early stages of past "super terminal" ecosystems like Apple or Tesla. While risks exist (commodity cycles, geopolitical factors, technology shifts), the core thesis is that SpaceX's massive, ongoing procurement will translate into reliable revenue for its key suppliers, regardless of its own stock price volatility.

marsbit45 dk önce

The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who is Dividing Up Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

marsbit45 dk önce

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

**Title: The Foundation of SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation: Who Benefits from Musk's Annual $100 Billion Capital Expenditure?** This article argues that investors seeking to benefit from SpaceX's growth might find greater opportunities in its supply chain rather than directly investing in the company itself, drawing parallels to historical successes with Apple, Tesla, and NVIDIA suppliers. **SpaceX's Business Model & Cash Flow:** SpaceX generates revenue from three main areas: 1. **Starlink:** Its profitable core, earning $11.3B in 2023 (60% of revenue), funding other ventures. 2. **Rockets (Falcon/Starship):** Requires $3B+ in annual R&D but achieves the world's lowest launch costs. 3. **AI:** Currently unprofitable (-$6B+ in 2023), investing heavily in ground-based supercomputers (220,000 GPUs) and future orbital data centers. The cycle is: Starlink profits → fund cheaper rockets → low-cost launches deploy AI hardware → AI compute rentals generate future revenue. This cycle drives annual procurement spending of tens of billions of dollars. **The Supply Chain Beneficiaries:** Suppliers are categorized by their replaceability: **1. Nearly Irreplaceable (High Barriers to Entry):** * **NVIDIA:** Powers the Colossus supercomputer; its CUDA ecosystem creates immense switching costs. * **Eutelsat (SATS):** Controls critical radio spectrum for satellite communications; holds a ~3% stake in SpaceX. * **Filtronic (FTC):** Supplies millimeter-wave signal amplifiers for Starlink satellites; SpaceX constitutes 83% of its revenue. * **Materion (MTRN):** Global leader in beryllium production, a strategic material used in Starship structures. * **STMicroelectronics (STM):** Supplies phased-array antenna chips for Starlink satellites. **2. Replaceable, but Switching Cost is Prohibitively High:** * **Honeywell (HON):** Provides flight control and inertial navigation systems with decades of certification. * **Carpenter Technology (CRS):** Manufactures ultra-pure specialty steel alloys for Raptor engines. * **Hexcel (HXL):** Supplies custom carbon fiber composites developed over a decade with SpaceX. * **Broadcom (AVGO):** Manages high-speed data switching. * **Linde Group:** Supplies industrial gases (liquid oxygen/nitrogen) from facilities built near SpaceX launch sites. **3. High-Volume, Cost-Critical Manufacturing:** Focuses on mass-producing components like Starlink user terminals (target: 30 million units). * **Key Players:** Wistron NeWeb (6285, primary terminal manufacturer), several Chinese A-share companies (e.g., Sunway Communication, PAX New Materials, Western Metal Materials, Yingliu Co.), and smaller US firms like Trimble (TRMB, timing systems). **Why Now?** Three factors make the supply chain opportunity timely: 1. **Volume Ramp-Up:** SpaceX plans 100 launches in 2026, aims for 30 million Starlink terminals, and will deploy AI data centers, meaning procurement will accelerate. 2. **Increased Transparency:** The IPO provides public financial data, allowing investors to track supplier order growth. 3. **Historical Precedent:** The current phase is likened to Tesla's early mass-production stage (circa 2018), suggesting a long growth runway for suppliers. **Conclusion:** The article posits that while investing in SpaceX stock is betting on Elon Musk's ambitious vision at a high valuation, investing in its established suppliers is a bet on the tangible, recurring revenue from its massive procurement budget, which is largely decoupled from day-to-day stock price volatility.

链捕手49 dk önce

SpaceX's Trillion-Dollar Valuation Base: Who's Sharing in Musk's Annual Tens of Billions in Capital Expenditure?

链捕手49 dk önce

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

Last Friday, the U.S. Commerce Department issued an enforcement letter that forced Anthropic to take its two most advanced AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, offline. The stated reason was unspecified national security concerns, initially linked to potential "jailbreaks" of the models' safeguards. However, new details suggest the action stemmed more from a deteriorating relationship between the Trump administration and Anthropic, rather than a genuine technical threat. According to reports, the government cited a little-known export control regulation, compelling Anthropic to block access for all non-U.S. persons, including its own international employees. The company complied, shutting down the models without a court order or specific technical details from the government. Cybersecurity expert Katie Moussouris revealed she was privately shown a research paper detailing a potential safeguard bypass in Fable 5. She argued the described method was minor and did not warrant an export ban, stating that attempts to "fix" it would only weaken the model's defensive capabilities. Moussouris and other experts have since called for the order to be revoked, warning it dangerously removes advanced cybersecurity tools from U.S. defenders. Analysts like Justin Hendrix suggest the move appears retaliatory and sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that the U.S. government can unilaterally shut down a tech company's products. The incident has raised concerns about the reliability of American AI and the potential for political interference in the tech industry, serving as a warning to the broader sector.

marsbit53 dk önce

The U.S. Government Blocked the Anthropic Model. It Wasn't About 'Jailbreaking' at All.

marsbit53 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

In his latest notes, Ray Dalio addresses a critical question for investors amid the AI-driven stock market surge: how should one allocate assets during a transformative technological revolution? Dalio emphasizes that technological advancement does not automatically make related stocks attractive. Historical tech cycles—marked by excitement, crowding, volatility, and eventual shakeouts—show that even long-term winners like Microsoft and Apple experienced severe drawdowns. Today's AI sector faces similar uncertainties: overinvestment, intensifying competition, geopolitical tensions (e.g., Taiwan's chip supply), tax policy shifts, anti-AI sentiment, and potential disruption from future technologies like quantum computing. Dalio's core argument focuses on the highly concentrated market structure, where a few tech giants dominate major indices. He warns investors against unknowingly holding concentrated, correlated exposures. Instead of chasing a handful of AI leaders, he advocates for a robust, diversified portfolio of 15 or more high-quality, uncorrelated investments, risk-balanced to match an investor's volatility tolerance. Mathematically, such diversification significantly improves the risk-return ratio—for example, holding 15 uncorrelated assets can boost the ratio by over four times compared to a single concentrated bet. Dalio cautions that future equity returns appear low, with his bubble indicator suggesting real returns could be negative over the next 5-10 years. He stresses that knowing what you don't know is as important as knowing what you do. In an environment of high uncertainty and concentration, avoiding large, concentrated bets on AI stocks is prudent. The optimal strategy is disciplined diversification—the "holy grail" of investing—to navigate this technologically driven cycle with lower risk and comparable or better returns.

marsbit56 dk önce

Ray Dalio: AI Bull Market Continues to Soar, Should Investors Go All In or Cash Out and Leave the Field?

marsbit56 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片