Ripple Exec Pushes Central Banks To Back Regulated Stablecoins

bitcoinistОпубліковано о 2026-01-20Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-20

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手5 год тому

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手5 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit7 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit7 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手9 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手9 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit10 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit10 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片