Big Banks Can Find Safety in Numbers on a Stablecoin
Working together could shield them individually from the reputational risk of any coin they issue being used to fund crime or terror.
Banks are contemplating a role for themselves in stablecoins if pending US legislation helps take cryptocurrencies and their gateway products mainstream. Companies owned by Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. have had discussed jointly issued coins, according to the Wall Street Journal. European lenders such as Banco Santander SA are also potentially interested in such projects.
It makes sense for banks to be involved in products that could compete directly with their own payment services and deposits. It’s also sensible for them to work together to shield them individually from the reputational risk of any coin they issue being used to fund crime or terror. They still need better rules and defenses around that possibility as well as confidence that the technology will be reliable.
President Donald Trump along with his family and friends are much more open to the possibilities of cryptocurrencies than previous administrations, to put it mildly. Congress is working on legislation for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins — the Genius Act and the Stable Act — to give them a practical foundation.
JPMorgan already has its own coin, but that has been limited to strictly internal uses to make cross-border transfers quickly and efficiently for its own clients. Big lenders will likely prefer joint projects rather than putting their own name to a public coin. Banks have previously worked together on new technologies to share both the costs and the risks while helping to create the level of trust that would encourage people to adopt them. Most recently, several lenders backed Zelle, an electronic instant payments service for consumers now offered by more than 2,000 US lenders. Zelle’s operating company is one of the firms involved in the joint stablecoin talks, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Stablecoins could prove to be a useful form of international payments in the future as well as a place to store money that isn’t a bank. Their main function today is as a staging place for moving money in and out of other kinds of crypto assets. The coins are meant to hold their value in dollar terms and be backed by cash-like assets such as Treasuries and government bills, money-market fund shares or bank deposits.
To have a chance of becoming broadly popular, these coins ought to become more like money-market funds, which would mean passing much of the interest they earn on their assets through to the holders of the coins. Yield-bearing stablecoins have grown rapidly in recent months and pose a growing threat to the existing interest-free versions that dominate the market, according to recent analysis from Bloomberg News.
Issuers of the leading stablecoins, such as Tether Holdings SA, which had links to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, became hugely profitable by pocketing the interest paid on the reserves backing their stablecoin instead of paying it out to users.
The legislation making its way through Congress proposes barring stablecoins from paying interest, protecting the profits of existing players. Banks also support the interest ban to help prevent coins from competing for their funding alongside money-market funds.
For investment banks, the bigger prize would be gaining access to the markets for trading cryptocurrencies, which have large retail markets and growing institutional interest, too. Electronic market makers such as Jane Street LLC or Citadel Securities dominate liquidity provision in digital asset markets because banks aren’t involved yet.
Non-banks collectively made crypto-linked revenue last year similar to what they made in foreign exchange market making, or about $3.25 billion, according to estimates from Coalition Greenwich this week. Splitting that between pure market making and proprietary trading — betting a firm’s own money in markets — is difficult to do, Coalition Greenwich said. Still, the trading fees for big banks could be significant if these markets do become more mainstream.
The biggest risk for banks becoming involved in any of this is crypto’s continuing links to criminal activity — whether that’s stablecoins or other assets. That is what has led many to steer clear even as the industry’s backers have complained of being unfairly — or even politically — denied access to banking services.
Big lenders should absolutely be involved in this technology if it’s going to prove useful, but defending themselves and their countries against criminal and terror-related financing remains the most important problem to solve before that can happen. Working together makes sense for that as well as being a shield against reputational risk....bloomberg news