#TheStablecoinDebate
About TheStablecoinDebate
WSJ's Greg Ip labeled USDT/USDC "private money," citing 84% of illicit crypto activity tied to stablecoins, under 1% payment use, and drawing parallels to 19th-century free banking. Coinbase policy chief Faryar Shirzad countered: ~90% of U.S. M2 is already private liabilities, and the GENIUS Act mandates 1:1 reserves while banning leverage. The clash lands as Congress must pass the bill before August recess. Passage reopens institutional on-ramps; if WSJ framing sways lawmakers, timeline slips.
Hot
Latest
TheStablecoinDebate Popular posts
#TheStablecoinDebate WSJ's chief economics commentator just called USDT and USDC "private money" — citing 84% of illicit crypto activity tied to stablecoins and under 1% actual payment use. Drew parallels to 19th-century free banking 📰
Coinbase's policy chief fired back immediately: ~90% of US M2 is already private liabilities. The GENIUS Act mandates 1:1 reserves and bans leverage. Not the same risk at all 💬
Both arguments have merit. Which makes this fight actually interesting 👀
But the timing is what I can't ignore. Congress has to pass GENIUS before August recess. This WSJ piece drops right in the middle of the legislative sprint. Is that a coincidence? 🤔
If the framing sticks with lawmakers, the timeline slips. If GENIUS passes, institutional on-ramps reopen.
"84% of illicit activity involves stablecoins" — is that a stablecoin problem, or just what happens when any large-scale payment tool exists? Cash doesn't get this treatment 💀
Who benefits most from this narrative war right now? 👇
🚨 WSJ Calls Stablecoins “Private Money” — But Is That a Risk or the Future of Finance?
The Wall Street Journal argues that stablecoins such as USDT and USDC resemble the private currencies issued during America’s 19th-century free banking era, warning that profit-driven issuers and potential depegging risks could threaten financial stability.
At the same time, U.S. lawmakers are pushing forward with stablecoin regulations through the GENIUS framework designed to increase transparency and reserve requirements.
The debate highlights a much bigger shift:
🔹 Stablecoins are no longer just crypto trading tools
🔹 They are becoming digital dollar infrastructure
🔹 They already move billions across borders every day
🔹 They may become the foundation for tokenized finance
For critics, stablecoins represent private money competing with public monetary systems.
For supporters, they are the most successful real-world blockchain application to date.
💭 If stablecoins become globally regulated and fully backed by safe assets, could they eventually challenge traditional banking rails for payments and settlements?
$USDT $USDC
#WSJonStablecoins
Stablecoins Are Becoming the New Private Money War.
This is not just a debate about $USDT and $USDC.
It is a fight over who gets to issue digital dollars.
Banks.
Governments.
Private crypto companies.
Payment networks.
On-chain finance.
WSJ is warning that stablecoins look like a new version of private money: useful , fast and global , but also risky if reserves , redemption and regulation are not strong enough.
That matters because stablecoins are already the bloodstream of crypto.
$USDT is the liquidity engine.
$USDC is the regulated dollar route.
$USDG is part of the next stablecoin wave.
$ENA and $MKR represent yield and synthetic-dollar experiments.
$ONDO , $LINK and $PYTH matter because tokenized assets need stable settlement rails.
$BTC , $ETH and $SOL still depend on stablecoin liquidity for market depth.
The bullish view:
Stablecoins can make payments faster , cheaper and global.
The bearish view:
If private issuers chase yield or lose trust , stablecoins can become a systemic risk.
My read:
Stablecoins are not boring.
They are the hidden power layer of crypto.
If regulators get this right , stablecoins become the bridge between banks and blockchains.
If they get it wrong , the next crisis may start from the asset everyone thought was “stable.”
#WSJonStablecoins
#TheStablecoinDebate WSJ's chief economics commentator just called USDT and USDC "private money" — citing 84% of illicit crypto activity tied to stablecoins and under 1% actual payment use. Drew parallels to 19th-century free banking 📰
Coinbase's policy chief fired back immediately: ~90% of US M2 is already private liabilities. The GENIUS Act mandates 1:1 reserves and bans leverage. Not the same risk at all 💬
Both arguments have merit. Which makes this fight actually interesting 👀
But the timing is what I can't ignore. Congress has to pass GENIUS before August recess. This WSJ piece drops right in the middle of the legislative sprint. Is that a coincidence? 🤔
If the framing sticks with lawmakers, the timeline slips. If GENIUS passes, institutional on-ramps reopen.
"84% of illicit activity involves stablecoins" — is that a stablecoin problem, or just what happens when any large-scale payment tool exists? Cash doesn't get this treatment 💀
Who benefits most from this narrative war right now? 👇
🚨🇺🇸 The loudest opposition to the Iran deal this weekend came from inside Trump's own party...
A wave of Republican heavyweights tore into the emerging framework.
Ted Cruz called it a "disastrous mistake."
Roger Wicker, who chairs Senate Armed Services, warned everything Operation Epic Fury achieved "would be for naught."
Mike Pompeo posted "Not remotely America First."
Lindsey Graham piled on.
Then came the pivot.
Trump called on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan to normalize with Israel through the Abraham Accords.
By Monday, Graham flipped and called the move "simply brilliant."
The normalization push hands the hawks a regional triumph to rally behind.
Whether the Gulf states ever sign is another question entirely.
Source: WSJ
Mario Nawfal
IMPORTANT UPDATE ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
Yes, there were reports of explosions in Iran, and air defenses were active
Yes, the U.S. seems to have shot at 2 Iranian speedboats, killing IRGC Navy personnel
Yes, there are reports of firs on Kharg Island, but this is unconfirmed and could be fake
No, this does not mean war is back, or that the deal is sabotaged
I stand by my position: The war is over and a deal has already been agreed, and will be announced any day.
It will include Iran charging a toll in Hormuz (called differently so it's legal), getting funds (probably a loan collateralized by its frozen assets), and the war in Lebanon ending.
Reading this after @greg_ip great @WSJ column pointing out 84% of stablecoin use is for things like ransom….
StarPlatinum
OnlyFans is Hacked 🚨
Apparently OnlyFans has been hacked and they're selling the complete database of 340 million users
including data of content creators and consumers.
The leaked data includes
- Usernames and profile names
- Email addresses
- Phone numbers
- Account creation dates
- Follower/subscriber metrics
- Creator/fan rankings
- Linked social media profiles
- Partial payment card metadata (last 4 digits of the card)
The result of this is going to be a massive wave of extortion attempts against users
The WSJ considers whether stablecoins, as "private money," need to follow the same regulatory path as banks. As Faryar points out, this framing misses the structural point-- 90% of M2 is already privately issued. The right question is whether regulation matches the risk. For stablecoins: no lending, no leverage, no fractional reserve. 1:1 cash and Treasuries by statute. GENIUS got that calibration right. CLARITY will do the same for broader market structure and for growing U.S.-regulated payment stablecoins.
Faryar Shirzad 🛡️
A piece from @greg_ip in @WSJ today asks whether stablecoins are a risk to the economy because they are "private money." It's a fair question, but the framing skips over how the US monetary system has actually worked for 160 years.
"Private money" isn't the exception in our system — it's the rule. Roughly 90% of M2 is privately issued: commercial bank deposits and money market fund shares. Each carries different risks and is regulated commensurately — banks by Basel, capital, FDIC, and stress testing; MMFs by SEC liquidity rules; and now GENIUS stablecoins by a purpose-built federal regime.
The right question isn't "public or private." It's whether the regulation matches the risk. GENIUS does.
