The rise of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) has sparked global debate about their role in the financial system. While these innovations promise greater efficiency, accessibility, and transparency, they also introduce new risks that challenge traditional regulatory frameworks. This article explores the core functions of stablecoins, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and DeFi ecosystems, analyzes their implications for financial stability, and outlines prudent regulatory approaches grounded in economic principles.
Stablecoins: Bridging Traditional and Digital Finance
Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a stable value—typically pegged 1:1 to a fiat currency like the U.S. dollar—and offer on-demand redemption. Unlike volatile cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum, stablecoins are often seen as safer instruments within the crypto ecosystem and serve as key mediums of exchange (Arner et al., 2020).
There are three primary types of stablecoins, classified by how they maintain parity:
- Fiat-collateralized stablecoins (e.g., Tether, USD Coin) dominate the market by holding reserves in short-term, low-risk assets denominated in fiat currencies—such as U.S. Treasuries, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, and bank deposits. Their balance sheet structure closely resembles that of money market funds (Aldasoro et al., 2024).
- Crypto-collateralized stablecoins (e.g., Dai) use cryptocurrency holdings as backing instead of fiat. Some operate through decentralized protocols where smart contracts manage over-collateralization to absorb price volatility.
- Algorithmic stablecoins, like the now-defunct TerraUSD, rely on algorithmic mechanisms to expand or contract supply based on demand, without full asset backing. The collapse of TerraUSD in May 2022 highlighted the fragility of this model under stress.
👉 Discover how modern financial platforms ensure asset stability in volatile markets.
While stablecoins are promoted as tools for efficient cross-border payments—bypassing traditional banking fees—they primarily function today as gateways into DeFi ecosystems. Their role as a "safe haven" during market turmoil remains questionable. Recent research shows that over 90% of stablecoin market capitalization consists of fiat-collateralized tokens, which are significantly affected by both crypto-sector shocks and U.S. monetary policy changes. This suggests stablecoins do not fully insulate users from either digital or traditional financial system volatility (Aldasoro et al., 2024).
Central Bank Digital Currencies: A New Form of Money
Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) represent another evolution in digital money, sharing functional similarities with stablecoins but backed directly by central banks. A CBDC is defined as a digital form of central bank money, denominated in the national unit of account and recorded on a secure ledger (BIS, 2020–2021).
Two main types exist:
- Wholesale CBDCs: Used exclusively by financial institutions for interbank settlements, improving efficiency in large-value payment systems.
- Retail CBDCs: Designed for public use by households and businesses, functioning as digital cash. Unlike current e-money (which represents liabilities of private institutions), retail CBDCs constitute direct claims on the central bank—offering higher safety and finality.
As of late 2024, only a few countries—Bahamas, Nigeria, and Jamaica—have fully launched retail CBDCs. At least 25 jurisdictions are piloting retail versions, while a similar number are testing wholesale models using tokenized reserves. Progress tends to be faster in economies with high mobile penetration, strong innovation capacity, and large informal sectors.
Design Considerations for Retail CBDCs
Several critical design choices shape CBDC implementation:
- Architecture: Most central banks favor a two-tier hybrid model—where the central bank issues the currency and maintains the core ledger, while private intermediaries handle customer onboarding and service delivery. A few explore direct models to promote financial inclusion for unbanked populations.
- Technology Infrastructure: Systems may run on centralized databases or distributed ledger technology (DLT). Many opt for permissioned DLT to balance efficiency with resilience against single points of failure.
- User Access Models: Account-based CBDCs require identity verification, supporting regulatory compliance and anti-fraud measures. Token-based models prioritize privacy and allow anonymous small transactions, with identity requirements scaling with transaction size.
- Cross-Border Functionality: While early projects focused domestically, increasing attention is being paid to enabling non-residents to access CBDCs and leveraging them for faster, cheaper international remittances.
Rationale for Prudential Regulation in DeFi
Financial regulation traditionally exists to correct market failures—particularly externalities and information asymmetries—that can destabilize the system. These same justifications apply to DeFi innovations.
Externalities in Financial Systems
Externalities occur when third parties bear costs (or reap benefits) not reflected in market transactions. In finance, negative externalities can trigger chain reactions: one institution’s default leads to counterparty losses, potentially cascading into systemic crises (Battiston et al., 2012). Such spillovers can disrupt credit supply and harm real economic activity—even affecting firms unrelated to the initial shock.
Beyond default chains, non-bank entities can generate monetary externalities through deleveraging pressures (Aramonte et al., 2021). For example, when crypto lenders face margin calls due to falling collateral values, forced liquidations can depress asset prices further, impacting other parts of the system.
In DeFi, while atomic settlement reduces settlement risk, systemic players like major stablecoins still pose significant risks. The failure of an algorithmic stablecoin can trigger contagion across lending protocols, exchanges, and derivatives markets.
Information Problems
Two core information issues undermine market integrity:
Information Insufficiency
Market participants often lack essential data to make informed decisions. Financial products—especially complex DeFi applications—are difficult to evaluate pre-purchase. Smart contracts execute based on changing inputs, making outcomes hard to predict. Additionally, investors rarely know much about development teams behind decentralized apps (dApps), even when some information is voluntarily disclosed.
Another concern involves oracles—services that feed real-world data into blockchains. Fully decentralized oracles often sacrifice speed and efficiency for decentralization, raising trade-offs in reliability and performance (Duley et al., 2023).
Information Asymmetry
When one party holds more or better information than another, markets produce suboptimal outcomes—such as lower quality offerings or even collapse (Akerlof, 1970). In DeFi, it’s difficult to assess developer credibility or intent. Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) obscure accountability—making it unclear who makes decisions or bears responsibility.
👉 Explore platforms that combine transparency with user protection in decentralized environments.
One notorious example is the "rug pull"—where developers raise funds via token sales then abandon the project or abscond with capital. Unlike traditional finance, where legal recourse may exist against identifiable managers, DeFi’s anonymity makes enforcement extremely difficult (Budish, 2024).
Mitigating Market Failures: Regulatory Strategies
Even with market failures present, regulation isn't always necessary if markets self-correct or risks are contained. However, evidence suggests intervention is warranted in key areas.
| Financial Function | Market Failure | Mitigation in Traditional Finance | Gaps in DeFi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & Settlement | Systemic externalities; information gaps | Prudential rules; central bank liquidity | No lender of last resort for stablecoins |
| Capital Aggregation | Asymmetric information; lack of oversight | Disclosure rules; regulated intermediaries | Reliance on whitepapers; no quality control |
| Risk Management | Counterparty uncertainty; opacity | Supervision; capital requirements | Overcollateralization only; private backstops |
While DeFi uses smart contracts and overcollateralization to reduce certain risks, critical gaps remain—especially regarding systemic stability and consumer protection.
Financial Stability Transmission Channels
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) identifies four key channels linking DeFi to broader economic stability:
- Exposure of traditional institutions to crypto assets.
- Confidence effects from crypto market volatility.
- Wealth effects due to asset price swings.
- Use in payments and settlement.
With the approval of spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs in 2024, household exposure has increased significantly. Real-world asset tokenization—such as real estate or bonds on blockchains—could further integrate DeFi into mainstream finance.
However, unexpected linkages emerged during the March 2023 banking stress, revealing indirect exposures between banks and large crypto custodians.
Cryptocurrencyization Risks in Emerging Economies
In countries with weak monetary credibility or high inflation—like Venezuela or Zimbabwe—cryptocurrencies may displace local currencies ("cryptoization"), mirroring existing dollarization trends. While users seek stability or higher returns, widespread adoption could undermine monetary policy transmission and expose borrowers to exchange rate risks.
Countries like India, Nigeria, and Indonesia already show higher crypto adoption than many developed nations (Chainalysis, 2024). Regulators may need to deploy capital controls, taxation, or licensing frameworks to limit systemic risks.
Protecting Market Participants in DeFi
As participation grows, protecting retail investors becomes essential. Evidence shows that during downturns—such as after TerraUSD and FTX collapses—trading volume increases while large holders ("whales") sell off positions and smaller investors ("shrimps") buy in (see Figure 4). This pattern suggests wealth redistribution from less-informed users to sophisticated actors.
Regulatory frameworks should focus on two pillars:
- Establishing minimum standards for product design and developer qualifications—especially where blockchain transparency doesn’t suffice.
- Embedding compliance into smart contracts, such as enforcing disclosure rules or ensuring fair execution.
Stablecoin issuers must be subject to strict oversight regarding reserve composition and redemption mechanisms to uphold dollar parity under stress.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the main difference between stablecoins and CBDCs?
A: Stablecoins are typically issued by private entities and pegged to assets like the U.S. dollar; CBDCs are digital forms of sovereign currency issued directly by central banks with full state backing.
Q: Can DeFi eliminate financial crises?
A: No. While DeFi reduces certain risks through automation and transparency, it introduces new vulnerabilities—including smart contract failures, oracle manipulation, and systemic runs on algorithmic stablecoins.
Q: Why are stablecoins important for financial stability?
A: They act as a bridge between traditional finance and DeFi. If widely adopted but poorly regulated, their failure could transmit shocks across markets—especially if used in payments or savings.
Q: How can regulators oversee decentralized protocols?
A: By focusing on entry points—like dApp interfaces—and entities that control protocol upgrades or treasury funds. Regulatory requirements can also be coded into smart contracts themselves.
Q: Are retail CBDCs replacing physical cash?
A: Not entirely. CBDCs aim to complement cash by offering a secure digital alternative—particularly valuable in societies moving toward cashless transactions.
Q: What prevents another TerraUSD-style collapse?
A: Stronger regulatory oversight of reserve adequacy, transparency requirements, and limits on algorithmic designs without sufficient collateral backing.
👉 Stay ahead of regulatory trends shaping the future of digital finance.