The Geopolitics of Stablecoins
Why European monetary sovereignty is at stake
Europe’s financial system, starting with its banks, cannot always wait for public leadership to embrace innovation. The fear that stablecoins might replace more profitable services in the short term cannot outweigh the benefits for customers, especially if Europe wants those customers to stay
European savings are once again a source of concern. One year after the publication of the Draghi and Letta reports—both highlighting how the lack of a more integrated European financial market ultimately benefits the US economy at the expense of Europe—the situation has, if anything, worsened.
Not only have various European authorities erected further barriers to the creation of a true capital market, particularly by blocking the rise of systemically important banking institutions, but Europe is also failing to recognise the tsunami heading its way from across the Atlantic. The newly adopted GENIUS legislation by the Trump Administration aims to promote the use of the dollar through blockchain technology, directly undermining other currencies.
Unless Europe reacts swiftly, the consequences for its monetary sovereignty could be severe.
There are three essential realities European policymakers must confront.
First: We are in the midst of a technological revolution with the potential to upend previous systems entirely. Initial scepticism is understandable. For those accustomed to centralised monetary systems—where payments are finalised only after a series of operations conducted via private and public institutions, as in the case of a bank transfer—it is not easy to accept that a decentralised blockchain-based system allows for transactions to be settled practically in real-time.
Stablecoins—unlike volatile cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin—enable 24/7, cost-free payments to counterparties worldwide, settling invoices, purchasing financial instruments, or sending remittances. All that is required is a digital wallet, interoperable with the most common blockchains, which are themselves becoming increasingly interconnected. Each wallet has a public identifier—a sort of digital IBAN—that counterparties can use to complete real-time transactions.
Wallets are loaded with stablecoins, purchased via a simple bank transfer, and then used for payments. These transactions are encrypted, providing privacy, yet traceable by authorities when needed, for example, to combat money laundering.
Second: The spread of stablecoins introduces challenges, some already identified by monetary authorities. Chief among these is ensuring the value of stablecoin. In principle, stability is guaranteed by 100% reserves held by the issuer, similar to the “narrow banking” concept. Regulation restricts the composition of reserves to highly liquid instruments and the terms of withdrawal.
But the risk that issuers might not comply cannot be totally excluded, especially if they are domiciled in jurisdictions with lax oversight. The solution is to place stablecoin issuers under the supervision of the monetary authorities in their country of issuance—meaning the United States, in the case of dollar-based stablecoins.
While current US regulation does not currently require this, it will be a natural market evolution. Notably, one of the best-known issuers, Circle, whose valuation recently soared from $6 to $50 billion in a matter of days, has sought a US banking license. It already promotes itself as the largest regulated stablecoin issuer.
Third: This technology is coming to Europe—indeed, it is already here, albeit spreading more slowly than in the US. If stablecoins are issued only by US entities, and only in dollars, they will inevitably be used by European businesses and citizens. This cannot be prevented.
The result would be a massive outflow of bank deposits from the continent, used to finance US Treasury securities held as reserves by stablecoin issuers.
In short, trying to halt the spread of this technology is not only futile but also harmful.
The lesson for Europe is clear: it must take the lead in adopting these new technologies.
Fortunately, the EU has established a solid regulatory framework—namely, the MiCA regulation—which enables European agents to issue euro-denominated stablecoins with robust consumer protections, particularly regarding reserve composition and regulatory oversight.
Now, it falls to the monetary authorities, above all the ECB, to overcome initial reluctance and encourage the issuance of euro stablecoins that can circulate globally and compete with their dollar-based counterparts.
Unfortunately, the central bank digital currency—the so-called digital euro, expected by 2028—is no real alternative. Its technology simply cannot compete with blockchain in terms of cost, versatility, reach, and speed. Nor can the ECB reasonably be expected to become a software company.
Europe’s financial system—starting with its banks—cannot always wait for public authorities to lead the way on innovation. The fear that stablecoins may cannibalise more profitable services in the short term cannot be allowed to trump the benefits this technology brings to customers, especially if Europe wants to keep these customers.
Without a rapid, competitive European response to America’s initiative, Europe’s financial system risks becoming even more of a colony than it already is.
A first version of this article was published in the Italian daily Il Foglio
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
Lorenzo Bini Smaghi
Lorenzo Bini Smaghi holds a degree in Economic Sciences from the Université Catholique de Louvain (Belgium) and a Ph.D in Economic Sciences from the University of Chicago. He has been Chairman of the Board of Directors of Société Générale since 2015. He is an IEP@BU non-resident fellow
The IEP@BU Mission
Founded by Bocconi University and Institute Javotte Bocconi, the Institute for European Policymaking @ Bocconi University combines the analytic rigor of a research institute, the policy impact of a think tank, and the facts-based effort of raising public opinion’s awareness about Europe through outreach activities. The Institute, fully interdisciplinary, intends to address the multi-fold obstacles that usually stand between the design of appropriate policies and their adoption, with particular attention to consensus building and effective enforcement.
The Institute’s mission is to conduct, debate, and disseminate high-quality research on the major policy issues facing Europe, and the EU in particular, its Member States and its citizens, in a rapidly changing world.
It is independent of any business or political influence.
The IEP@BU Management Council
Catherine De Vries, IEP@BU President
Daniel Gros, IEP@BU Director
Sylvie Goulard, IEP@BU vice-President, Professor of Practice in Global Affairs at SDA Bocconi School of Management
Silvia Colombo, IEP@BU Deputy Director
Carlo Altomonte, Associate Professor at Bocconi University and Associate Dean for Stakeholder Engagement Programs at SDA Bocconi School of Management
Arnstein Assve, Professor in Demography at Bocconi University
Valentina Bosetti, professor of Environmental and Climate Change Economics at Bocconi University
Elena Carletti, Dean for Research and Professor of Finance at Bocconi University
Eleanor Spaventa, Professor of European Union Law at Bocconi Law School