source：@DeFi_Cheetah，@VelocityCap_投资人
The rise of blockchain-based finance has
stimulated debates on the future of money, particularly in areas previously
limited to academia and central bank policy circles. Stablecoins—digital assets
designed to maintain par value with national currencies—have become the
dominant bridge between traditional and decentralized finance. While there are
a lot of people bullposting the prospect of stablecoin adoption, it may not be
in the best interests of the US to promote stablecoins, because it can disrupt
the USD money creation. TLDR:
- Stablecoins are actually competing with the amount of deposits
in the US banking system. Hence, the money creation via fractional reserve
model and hence the effectiveness of Fed's implementation of monetary
policies (to control money supply via open market operation or other
means) is disrupted, by reducing the total amount of banking deposits.
- In particular, the amount of money creation for stablecoins is
marginal, as most stablecoin backings are treasuries with shorter
durations (i.e. less sensitive to rate movements). Comparatively, bank’s
money creation per dollar is way higher as their liabilities are composed
by bonds of much longer duration. Thus, prevalence of stablecoins within
the US could also compromise Monetary Transmission Mechanism.
- This is so even though stablecoins can increase the demand of
treasury bills, and the refinancing cost of the US government could be
lowered by the rise of stablecoins.
- The money creation remains intact only if the USD collateral
goes back to the banking system by way of deposits, but this does not make
sense due to the opportunity cost (risk-free treasury yield) suffered by
stablecoin issuers
- Banks could not take stablecoins to replace their fiat deposits
since stablecoins are issued by private entities, hence enhancing the
counter-party risks
- The US government also would not recuperate the amount of
banking deposits flowing to stablecoins, by putting the amount back to the
banking system, since this amount from selling treasury bills were charged
at various rates, and the US government had to pay the cost of the spread
between coupon rate the bank deposit rate, adding to the burden of federal
budgeting.
- ***Most importantly, the self-custodial nature of stablecoins
negates the possibility of being compatible with banking deposits: all
digital assets are custodial, except those on blockchains. Hence, stronger
presence of stablecoins in the US territory would directly
disrupt the money creation
- The only way for stablecoins to be compatible with money
creation is that stablecoin issuers should operate as banks, but it's
certainly a very challenging question, intersecting regulatory compliance
with tycoons' vested interests...
