This website uses cookies to collect usage information in order to offer a better browsing experience. By browsing this site or by clicking on the "ACCEPT COOKIES" button you accept our Cookie Policy.

“Stablecoins, Not Crypto” Is the New “Blockchain, Not Bitcoin”

The striking thing about the latest efforts to ditch cryptocoins in favor of “blockchain technology” is the increasing recognition that cryptocurrencies are here to stay.

Earlier this month, Circle announced it would go public at a valuation of $4.5 billion. The company issues USDC, a crypto token that’s pegged to the dollar that’s known as a so-called stablecoin. 

The amount of USDC circulating today has exploded this year. It rose from about $1 billion last year to over $26 billion today. Pretty good for a coin that does just one thing: stay stable. 

The Circle listing will be crypto’s second most important public-market debut, after Coinbase’s direct listing in April. It will mark the continued maturation of key tools in the crypto toolbox, from markets to trade tokens like Coinbase to dollar alternatives like USDC. It’s worth noting that USDC is technically jointly issued by both Circle and Coinbase, through an entity called the Centre Consortium. 

Circle’s listing also spotlights a new narrative that’s taking hold: that stablecoins, and their close cousin, the central-bank digital currency, or CBDC, are the interesting thing about crypto. It’s the thing that serious people in suits and ties talk about; not the shenanigans committed by people in unicorn hoodies and anime avatars. “Stablecoins, not crypto” may be the reformulation of the claim that it’s “blockchain, not bitcoin” that’s the revolutionary thing produced by the collision of cryptography and money. 

The “blockchain, not bitcoin” ethos probably reached its zenith with the Bloomberg Markets cover featuring former JP Morgan bigwig Blythe Masters as its star. She had just joined a company called Digital Asset Holdings as its chief executive. The firm was supposed to take the best bits from cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, and build real technology for real financial institutions. 

A cottage industry of consultants and vendors flourished around this idea. There was IBM Blockchain, which also touted the salutary effects of a blockchain—minus the coin—on industries as far flung as shipping and tracking pork across China. Sober accounting firms like EY and PwC had their consulting divisions throw their hats in the ring to figure out solutions to more reliable land registry operations and digital identity using blockchains—again, stripped of any coins. 

We see a similar manic phase brewing today with stablecoins and their close cousins CBDCs. You see, the blockchain-not-bitcoin narrative withered away in crypto winter—as impacted by the downturn in coin prices, despite the fact that they claimed coins were the unwanted byproduct of blockchains. IBM reportedly shuttered its blockchain unit; the various schemes using coinless chains went nowhere; and Blythe Masters herself departed Digital Asset Holdings for the more familiar realm of traditional private equity. 

Perhaps the most illustrative episode of the death of “enterprise” blockchains is the well publicized defection of former EY blockchain chief Angus Champion de Crespigny. From being paid by corporations to tell them how blockchain technology could solve their problems, he became someone who spoke out publicly against corporate use of blockchains. “I [don’t] see where private blockchains could create any value to business,” he told Barron’s

But, just as the “enterprise blockchain” bubble was deflating, the hot air released appeared to be captured by a new vessel. It turned out that one of the biggest enterprises yet was interested in its own blockchain, and this time it would have a coin—sort of. Facebook’s Libra project, a proposal to create a stablecoin within the Facebook system, was much rumored and finally announced in 2019, sparking a multi-year rush to figure out stablecoins among the cryptorati and central bankers alike. 

At first, it was global monetary minnows who were interested in the notion of a CBDC. There was the Bahamas with its “sand dollar” project, for instance. Sweden made noises about an e-krona. But as the hype around digital money built, it began to attract bigger fish. Today, the European Central Bank is working on the next phase of a CBDC investigation, which might see a full implementation of a digital euro by the middle of this decade. The Federal Reserve is also deep in the throes of CBDC explorations, with Jerome Powell telling Congress that a major report on the matter is due in September. 

The outlier to the CBDC hype has been China. It has been working on a digital yuan for years, and is the furthest ahead when it comes to major economies. While most “CBDC, not crypto” projects are at various exploratory or trial stages, the digital yuan has already transacted $5 billion, and continues to develop apace. Innovation vaporware this is not. 

Summing up the latest, “CBDC not crypto” fervor is the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements, also known colloquially as the central bank for central banks. Its last annual report had plenty to say on the subject. “By now, it is clear that cryptocurrencies are speculative assets rather than money,” it inveighed. “Bitcoin in particular has few redeeming public interest attributes.” It judged CBDCs, built on private blockchains, rather differently: “They are an advanced representation of money for the digital economy.”

The striking thing about the latest efforts to ditch cryptocoins in favor of “blockchain technology” is the increasing recognition that cryptocurrencies are here to stay. For instance, China’s central bank recently said for the first time that its digital yuan uses smart contracts—a feature pioneered by Ethereum. Circle’s USDC stablecoin is, in essence, a smart contract built on Ethereum, and now widely integrated across various public blockchains. And CBDC projects of all stripes speak of “open platforms” as key to their potential benefits. 

It seems that with each boom and bust cycle of “blockchain tech,” the end result keeps getting closer to a public, permissionless, version of the technology. In other words, it might turn out that crypto, not blockchain, is where all the value lies. 

Originally Posted on July 23, 2021 – “Stablecoins, Not Crypto” Is the New “Blockchain, Not Bitcoin”

Disclosure: Interactive Brokers

Information posted on IBKR Traders’ Insight that is provided by third-parties and not by Interactive Brokers does NOT constitute a recommendation by Interactive Brokers that you should contract for the services of that third party. Third-party participants who contribute to IBKR Traders’ Insight are independent of Interactive Brokers and Interactive Brokers does not make any representations or warranties concerning the services offered, their past or future performance, or the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

This material is from The Business of Business - Thinknum Media and is being posted with permission from The Business of Business - Thinknum Media. The views expressed in this material are solely those of the author and/or The Business of Business - Thinknum Media and IBKR is not endorsing or recommending any investment or trading discussed in the material. This material is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security. To the extent that this material discusses general market activity, industry or sector trends or other broad based economic or political conditions, it should not be construed as research or investment advice. To the extent that it includes references to specific securities, commodities, currencies, or other instruments, those references do not constitute a recommendation to buy, sell or hold such security. This material does not and is not intended to take into account the particular financial conditions, investment objectives or requirements of individual customers. Before acting on this material, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and, as necessary, seek professional advice.

In accordance with EU regulation: The statements in this document shall not be considered as an objective or independent explanation of the matters. Please note that this document (a) has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research, and (b) is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination or publication of investment research.

Any trading symbols displayed are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to portray recommendations.

Disclosure: Forex

There is a substantial risk of loss in foreign exchange trading. The settlement date of foreign exchange trades can vary due to time zone differences and bank holidays. When trading across foreign exchange markets, this may necessitate borrowing funds to settle foreign exchange trades. The interest rate on borrowed funds must be considered when computing the cost of trades across multiple markets.

Disclosure: Digital Assets

Trading in digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, is especially risky and is only for individuals with a high risk tolerance and the financial ability to sustain losses. Eligibility to trade in digital asset products may vary based on jurisdiction.

trading top