A more just test for making good money star-news.press/wp

Stablecoins soon grown to become a prominent market, but this does not mean that its resident power has stopped interrogation. The bank has recently made international settlements to this matter again, with Al -Jadid a report Claiming the nails fail in three decisive criteria that must fulfill any good money: flexibility, flexibility and integrity. But personally, I can’t fully agree with this evaluation.

It is recognized that Stablecoins is not perfect. Although significant growth is achieved, the market is still small compared to traditional banking services, and the predictions related to its future progress have already been contacted. Jpmorgan, for example, now Sees The Stablecoin Market reaches $ 500 billion by 2028-by decrease by half compared to the expectations of trillion dollars that some were betting only last year.

Moreover, Stablecoins has not yet seen widespread dependence outside the original encrypted platforms. In other words, they still have a long way before they become a prevailing financial tools or competing banks on a large scale.

But this does not mean that they fail in the three tests that you used to reject it. In fact, I would like to claim that they might pass them better than banks. The whole thing is how we look at it.

Individual: a practical perspective

The BIS report argues that Stablecoins lacks “Singleness” – the idea that every unit of money should deserve the same unit. On paper, this seems reasonable. In practice, however, the individual is not perfect. Even banking deposits can lose value or become non -liquid in difficult times.

Take the USDC (USDC) and Tether (USDT), the most famous Stablecoins. It is no less than “single” of traditional banking deposits. The holders of US dollars can be recovered at the nominal value. Sometimes the market price deviates slightly, but the same can be said to bank deposits. Just look back at Silicon Valley Bank Collapse – Some depositors sold their claims to deduct so that they can get out faster. This is not completely different from USDC trading under its connection during the same crisis because people were hiding around the place where reserves were kept.

However, Stablecoins offers something that banks do not do: the ability to absorb immediate demand. On weekends or holidays, when the banking system is closed, you can still circulate USDT or USDC. Distinguished banking deposits are likely to behave – if you gain an attraction – it is likely to act in the same way. So if we are fair, stablecoins do not fail in the individual; They only show how the concept itself faces obstacles in realistic circumstances.

Flexibility: The fastest does not mean weaker

Next: Flexibility – The idea that the money system must expand or contract to meet the demands of the real economy. BIS claims that stablecoins lacks flexibility because it requires a lot of money. You cannot spend what has not yet been drunk, and an additional version requires payment by holders.

But the Catch: Stablecoin transforms completely differently from traditional banking services. With banks, when you transfer money, it often takes at least a full working day to get money to settle it. During that time, banks can effectively print temporary funds because the same money may appear in two places simultaneously: the sender account still shows the balance while the bank bank treats the incoming batch. This gap is one of the ways that banks maintain liquidity and maintain the flow of payments, even when the actual money has not yet moved.

Stablecoin transactions work differently because the settlement occurs immediately on Blockchain. The moment the transaction is confirmed, the money is transferred – there is no “money in transit” as is the case with banks. However, it is possible to build encryption mechanisms that mimic the bank -like liquidity.

One way to do this is through flash loans, as the “unacceptable” stablecoins is mainly borrowed and paid in the same Blockchain treatment. This means that liquidity is provided immediately, without the risk of leaving the system with bad debts.

It is a different model, but it shows that Stablecoins do not have to copy exactly banks – they can build flexibility directly in the code, and quickly settle transactions while continuing to expand when the system is needed.

Integrity: Is the banking system safer?

Finally, the BIS report raises the issue of integrity: how good the money system prevents illegal activity and guarantees compliance. Banks have contracts for anti -money laundering measures. The encryption, according to the design, is more open – this worries the organizers.

But AML Traditional Banking is barely guaranteed. United Nations estimates Suggest Less than 1 % of financial crimes actually stop by today’s systems. In Crypto, breaches – incredibly frustrated – are incredible – but the Blockchains transparency makes tracking stolen money possible in ways that the banks cannot match.

As a result, a large part of the stolen encryption boxes can be recovered. Maybe not all, but it is still much better than a small part of the illegal money that has been intercepted in the traditional banking system.

Stablecoins is a continuous work – but this does not mean that banks are winning

In short, the refusal of Stablecoins because it works differently from banking services completely lacks this point. Stablecoins do not need to be banking banks – they only need to do what the money is supposed to do: keep their value, move when needed, and maintain confidence.

On all three fronts – flexibility, flexibility and integrity – the comparison is much more accurate than the BIS report indicates. If anything, the test should also pay banks to develop as well. After all, the future of money is not related to defending old models; It comes to building systems that already work with the people they use.