Stablecoins will become the next CBDCs

[Abiky]

Forget CBDCs. Stablecoins are the next big thing. Why bother making a new digital currency from scratch, when governments can already use stablecoins and make it their own? They can introduce laws to help require stablecoin issuers to force KYC/AML compliance and give them complete control of the system. In such an scenario, central banks will cease to exist as monetary policy will lie directly in the hands of governments and corporations.

I think that's precisely what the Trump administration is doing. Trump signed an executive order to prevent the creation of a US CBDC. But the new GENIUS act (meant for regulating stablecoins) could be the path towards making US-backed stablecoins the official digital currency of America. In other words, stablecoins will indirectly become the new CBDCs. I'm talking about Tether USD (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), USD1, and the likes. At least, that's how I see it.

Wouldn't you agree? Share your thoughts/opinion below. Thanks.

[pangu]

Stablecoins will bring crypto to mainstream! Apple, X, and Airbnb among growing number of Big Tech firms exploring crypto adoption
https://fortune.com/crypto/2025/06/06/apple-x-airbnb-google-cloud-stablecoins-crypto-conversations/

[Nwada001]

Wouldn't you agree? Share your thoughts/opinion below. Thanks.

Currently the US already has halfway access to the USDT which are being issued; it's centralised after all, and to some extent they determine how those USDT are being used. They order for wallets to be frozen, and the order is being obeyed.

It will be easy work for them, and I also buy the idea that if they can just abandon the CBDC shit and focus on regulating the USDT more, it will become more of the country's digital currency, but they will just implement their overprinting/minting out of thin air without proper backup.

[Stalker22]

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

[bullbandit9]

Forget CBDCs. Stablecoins are the next big thing. Why bother making a new digital currency from scratch, when governments can already use stablecoins and make it their own? They can introduce laws to help require stablecoin issuers to force KYC/AML compliance and give them complete control of the system. In such an scenario, central banks will cease to exist as monetary policy will lie directly in the hands of governments and corporations.

I think that's precisely what the Trump administration is doing. Trump signed an executive order to prevent the creation of a US CBDC. But the new GENIUS act (meant for regulating stablecoins) could be the path towards making US-backed stablecoins the official digital currency of America. In other words, stablecoins will indirectly become the new CBDCs. I'm talking about Tether USD (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), USD1, and the likes. At least, that's how I see it.

Wouldn't you agree? Share your thoughts/opinion below. Thanks.

Almost all of the powers that you are afraid a government will be able to use with CBDCs, can already be used by Stablecoin issues. The only difference is that private issuers can't force you to use them, while a government can. So when you are using these stablecoins you already accept all the risks that come with it. They can freeze you, they can blacklist you, they can do whatever they want with little legal recourse.

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

With privately issues tokens it is much different than with Bitcoin. The government can effectively control them in many ways, but Bitcoin they can't.

[TastyChillySauce00]

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

Except they absolutely have control over it, what it needs is just proper regulation.
Those stablecoins are unlike any algorithmic delta neutral mantaining stablecoin that are decentralized, these stablecoins are backed by fractional reserves and some of them are t-bill.
To get your stablecoin backed by t-bill you need to abide by law.

[Marvell1]

I agree. While other countries like the EU or China are trying to create their own CBDC, the United States has decided to use stablecoins as its official digital currency. To me, this is a much smarter move than creating a completely new CBDC because stablecoins are already widely used and familiar to people.

Not to mention, they seem to have bigger ambitions with that idea and it looks like they'll be successful again. Most of the stablecoins in the market are pegged to the USD and by using stablecoins, the US is indirectly forcing the world to depend on the USD again.

Admittedly, they are smart and always one step ahead of the world.

[Stalker22]

I agree. While other countries like the EU or China are trying to create their own CBDC, the United States has decided to use stablecoins as its official digital currency.
~

Excuse me? As far as I know, the U.S. has absolutely not "decided to use stablecoins as its official digital currency." Thats a massive misunderstanding.

You are probably thinking of the GENIUS Act, but no. That has nothing to do with making stablecoins the official digital currency.

[lonerangerh]

Your theory that Trump’s policies are steering stablecoins to become “official digital dollars” has merit, especially given the administration’s push to “bring stablecoin innovation onshore” and David Sacks’ comments on stablecoins extending dollar dominance digitally. The rise of USD1, backed by Trump’s World Liberty Financial and issued on BNB Chain, underscores this trend, with its $2.1 billion market cap making it the seventh-largest stablecoin in just two months. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s remarks at the White House Crypto Summit about using stablecoins to maintain dollar hegemony further support this. Stablecoin issuers holding over $120 billion in US Treasuries also tie these assets to the US financial system, creating a feedback loop that bolsters government debt demand

[o48o]

Forget CBDCs. Stablecoins are the next big thing. Why bother making a new digital currency from scratch, when governments can already use stablecoins and make it their own? They can introduce laws to help require stablecoin issuers to force KYC/AML compliance and give them complete control of the system. In such an scenario, central banks will cease to exist as monetary policy will lie directly in the hands of governments and corporations.

I think that's precisely what the Trump administration is doing. Trump signed an executive order to prevent the creation of a US CBDC. But the new GENIUS act (meant for regulating stablecoins) could be the path towards making US-backed stablecoins the official digital currency of America. In other words, stablecoins will indirectly become the new CBDCs. I'm talking about Tether USD (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), USD1, and the likes. At least, that's how I see it.

Wouldn't you agree? Share your thoughts/opinion below. Thanks.

So when you are comparing this to CBDCs, i am assuming that you are talking about basically replacing banks with other companies like Tether? A company that didn't even bother to meet up current regulations in EU. You think they would be more transparent are responsible then banks that are actually following the transparency requirements? I am not sure who this idea would benefit.

And it's not just banks. You are talking about replacing SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications). At least CBDCs were planned for that. So you think they want slower tech to replace working tech and that's somehow now scalable to the whole US? Why would this be better?

I believe that it stablecoins can thrive without trying to replace the current system so why it would need to be replacement?  

Not to mention that majority don't understand how anything crypto related works and get constantly scammed because they can hardly use existing tech (which is as easy as it can be). Forcing people to use complex new systems isn't beneficial.

[nelson4lov]

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

Government can control it if they want lol. Too easy for them. That's why most of these corporations don't even bother to make establish themselves in the US. If they want, they can just use absurd laws and regulations to keep it under wraps and control. Are there no non-crypto private in the US?

Government can get what they want:
 

• Either they create it and get everyone to bend the kneel. Or
• They gather everyone who created it and get them to bend the knee. 

[TastyChillySauce00]

Your theory that Trump’s policies are steering stablecoins to become “official digital dollars” has merit, especially given the administration’s push to “bring stablecoin innovation onshore” and David Sacks’ comments on stablecoins extending dollar dominance digitally. The rise of USD1, backed by Trump’s World Liberty Financial and issued on BNB Chain, underscores this trend, with its $2.1 billion market cap making it the seventh-largest stablecoin in just two months. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s remarks at the White House Crypto Summit about using stablecoins to maintain dollar hegemony further support this. Stablecoin issuers holding over $120 billion in US Treasuries also tie these assets to the US financial system, creating a feedback loop that bolsters government debt demand

I just think that they are trying to open up huge market of stablecoin to increase demand for the USD since the supply has been rising for quite a while, there needs to be a place to absorb all those money for it to not inflate too much.

[passwordnow]

CBDCs are a huge flop. They are about to compete with the stable coins but these central banks or whichever agencies that have thought they'll be able to make some difference against the Stablecoins understood that it won't be as big as the stable coins. While the CBDCs could also offer the same range as the stable coins but if it's about liquidity, it's no doubt that the stable coins has the number. To be honest, there is no big difference for me if I'll look at them. Both are controlled by centralized authorities and the mere difference is about the issuers of it.

[bitgolden]

CBDCs are a huge flop. They are about to compete with the stable coins but these central banks or whichever agencies that have thought they'll be able to make some difference against the Stablecoins understood that it won't be as big as the stable coins. While the CBDCs could also offer the same range as the stable coins but if it's about liquidity, it's no doubt that the stable coins has the number. To be honest, there is no big difference for me if I'll look at them. Both are controlled by centralized authorities and the mere difference is about the issuers of it.

Maybe some are not for the competition but they only join for the sake of hype and then some only wants their own kind of crypto. Stable coins are much bigger because they are earlier but if given enough time, maybe CBDC's can also improved?

This why the OP's thread title should be reversed. At first, it may seem that both are centralized but there are actually stable coins that are also decentralized (for those who don't know yet). They may not only be popular than the centralized ones but if we are still into the decentralization aspect and at the same time wants to experience some stability, then we can choose them over CBDC's.

[avikz]

Forget CBDCs. Stablecoins are the next big thing. Why bother making a new digital currency from scratch, when governments can already use stablecoins and make it their own? They can introduce laws to help require stablecoin issuers to force KYC/AML compliance and give them complete control of the system. In such an scenario, central banks will cease to exist as monetary policy will lie directly in the hands of governments and corporations.

I think that's precisely what the Trump administration is doing. Trump signed an executive order to prevent the creation of a US CBDC. But the new GENIUS act (meant for regulating stablecoins) could be the path towards making US-backed stablecoins the official digital currency of America. In other words, stablecoins will indirectly become the new CBDCs. I'm talking about Tether USD (USDT), USD Coin (USDC), USD1, and the likes. At least, that's how I see it.

Wouldn't you agree? Share your thoughts/opinion below. Thanks.

Well, not really! I don't see a stablecoin becoming a CBDC with an authorization from the government. A government is a controlling entity. Money supply is one of the most important things that a government wants to control. So no matter how deep a stablecoin penetrates, it can never become a CBDC. A CBDC will always be directly controlled by the government and no one else will have any control on it. That's how a CBDC will function.

Indirectly, a stablecoin can have a good penetration in the market. But it will always be comsidered as a stablecoin and not a government authorized CBDC. There's a huge difference in these two types of coins.

[Abiky]

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

Governments will still be able to control stablecoins by manipulating the companies behind them. Lawmakers can draft regulations that would keep stablecoin companies in check. This way, stablecoins will serve as the de-facto digital currencies of the government.

I think that's the plan of Trump's administration. Ban the creation of a US CBDC, but indirectly support stablecoins and make them legal tender. The GENIUS act passed by Congress, tell us things are moving in this direction. I bet the EU will do the same, while China will drop its "e-CNY" CBDC in favor of a CNY-backed stablecoin. We can never tell what will happen in the future. So here's hoping for the best.

[bullbandit9]

Governments will never accept something they cannot fully control. Whether its CBDCs or stablecoins, control is the name of the game.  The idea that governments would just adopt existing stablecoins and give up their role in monetary policy is naive. Why would they give that power to private corporations like Tether or Circle?  They wont.

Governments will still be able to control stablecoins by manipulating the companies behind them. Lawmakers can draft regulations that would keep stablecoin companies in check. This way, stablecoins will serve as the de-facto digital currencies of the government.

I think that's the plan of Trump's administration. Ban the creation of a US CBDC, but indirectly support stablecoins and make them legal tender. The GENIUS act passed by Congress, tell us things are moving in this direction. I bet the EU will do the same, while China will drop its "e-CNY" CBDC in favor of a CNY-backed stablecoin. We can never tell what will happen in the future. So here's hoping for the best.

The whole thing hinges on whether the use of this will become mandatory, in the short term or ever. Even if they create it, it depends a lot on what will be done with it. Remember, almost all the favorite altcoin tokens have the same features as a CBDC. Freezing, upgrading, minting and so on. The only thing that is keeping it in check is the risk of reputation loss. Should it become a standard and pushed by the government, I can see a shift to centralized narratives and ideas that are completely contrary to the ideals behind Bitcoin.

Luckily for us, there is just one asset that nobody can do this to. 

[Abiky]

So when you are comparing this to CBDCs, i am assuming that you are talking about basically replacing banks with other companies like Tether? A company that didn't even bother to meet up current regulations in EU. You think they would be more transparent are responsible then banks that are actually following the transparency requirements? I am not sure who this idea would benefit.

And it's not just banks. You are talking about replacing SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications). At least CBDCs were planned for that. So you think they want slower tech to replace working tech and that's somehow now scalable to the whole US? Why would this be better?

I believe that it stablecoins can thrive without trying to replace the current system so why it would need to be replacement?  

Not to mention that majority don't understand how anything crypto related works and get constantly scammed because they can hardly use existing tech (which is as easy as it can be). Forcing people to use complex new systems isn't beneficial.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Corporations replacing both retail and central banks, effectively taking control of the traditional monetary system. In no way, this will strip away governments' ability to freeze, track and trace account, or even change monetary policy. Corporations will simply establish a partnership with the government and work together for a "better future". While SWIFT is widely adopted by financial entities worldwide, it's certainly an obsolete system. Blockchain proves to be superior, even though it has its limitations (like fees rising all the way to the moon and confirmation times slowing down due to increased network activity).

There were rumors that the XRP Ledger was going to replace SWIFT in the future. XRP is centralized, fast, and cheap, making it the perfect contender against SWIFT. Not to mention, many banks have partnered with Ripple. The real deal would be getting people to use native digital currencies on a daily basis. Not everyone is tech-savvy. Especially the elderly. Governments need to educate the masses if they want people to use stablecoins. Between a CBDC and a centralized stablecoin, I can't imagine which would be worse. Let's what happens in the long run.

[o48o]

Yes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Corporations replacing both retail and central banks, effectively taking control of the traditional monetary system. In no way, this will strip away governments' ability to freeze, track and trace account, or even change monetary policy. Corporations will simply establish a partnership with the government and work together for a "better future". While SWIFT is widely adopted by financial entities worldwide, it's certainly an obsolete system. Blockchain proves to be superior, even though it has its limitations (like fees rising all the way to the moon and confirmation times slowing down due to increased network activity).

There were rumors that the XRP Ledger was going to replace SWIFT in the future. XRP is centralized, fast, and cheap, making it the perfect contender against SWIFT. Not to mention, many banks have partnered with Ripple. The real deal would be getting people to use native digital currencies on a daily basis. Not everyone is tech-savvy. Especially the elderly. Governments need to educate the masses if they want people to use stablecoins. Between a CBDC and a centralized stablecoin, I can't imagine which would be worse. Let's what happens in the long run.

Why would US, or any region give all this trust and power to some 3rd party private company? They would basically give keys to break the financial system, or keep US as a hostage and making them vulnerable in time of crisis.

And banks partnering with Ripple doesn't mean anything. What are those partnerships exactly? Pilot programs? Institutions are constantly making all sorts of partnerships that are testing different systems. That doesn't mean they would lead to anything meaningful.

You are talking about blockchain proving to be superior, and SWIFT being obsolete, when it's clearly working 24/7, and you don't back up your claims with anything other then blockchain tech might be hard to scale (which is opposite of better). Blockchain is just a distributed ledger, and tech used to do it can vary a lot and it doesn't really make sense to call any of them superior, because they are not even comparable to existing tech. I can't see any way how that any of them are somehow "better" to adopt.

Only reason them being better is the argument of them being self-custodial, but that wouldn't even be the case with centralized blockchains when they comply with regulators and have control over your money. Major problem of current banking are the fees, but that's an artificial problem and could be cut by regulations if we wanted to do that.

[bullbandit9]

Why would US, or any region give all this trust and power to some 3rd party private company? They would basically give keys to break the financial system, or keep US as a hostage and making them vulnerable in time of crisis.

It is never going to happen. There are two types of concerns that people generally have, and one is a group that contains things like this. It sounds like a valid concern, but it is not. Nobody is going to allow any corporation to become that strong.

And banks partnering with Ripple doesn't mean anything. What are those partnerships exactly? Pilot programs? Institutions are constantly making all sorts of partnerships that are testing different systems. That doesn't mean they would lead to anything meaningful.

Firstly, it is just private companies partnering with other private companies. It does not mean that much. Second, I agree with you that most of these partnerships are empty marketing ideas that eventually lead to nowhere.

You are talking about blockchain proving to be superior, and SWIFT being obsolete, when it's clearly working 24/7, and you don't back up your claims with anything other then blockchain tech might be hard to scale (which is opposite of better). Blockchain is just a distributed ledger, and tech used to do it can vary a lot and it doesn't really make sense to call any of them superior, because they are not even comparable to existing tech. I can't see any way how that any of them are somehow "better" to adopt.

SWIFT is terrible and slow, but the reason that they keep it how it is is because they have complete control over it.