Welcome to Issue 7 of Stablecoin State.
The weekly stablecoin brief for finance leaders, builders and fintech professionals who understand that stablecoins are a monetary infrastructure story - not a crypto story.
This week, lengthy CLARITY Act negotiations between the crypto and banking industries over a key legal matter finally concluded.
At stake, the crucial Section 404:
Can stablecoins pay a return to holders?
If so, in what cases?
This is an existential issue for banks who rely on the cheap deposit funding that underpins their profitability.
In the aftermath of the announced compromise, both sides declared victory.
The Bank lobby claim they've ringfenced their deposit franchise.
Crypto lobbyists claim they have preserved the reward economics that fuel their growth.
Both are partially right and missing the bigger story.
The bigger story is that the United States has just completed a 14-month policy sequence that converts global stablecoin demand directly into demand for US Treasury debt.
Demand they badly need given their debt dynamics.
The spiralling US budget deficit gets funded.
The deficit gets a new bid.
The American commercial banks get their funding model repriced higher.
And the rest of the world gets a digital export of the dollar that no foreign central bank has the tools to compete with.
It's obvious to me as someone who traded US, European, British and Australian sovereign debt for 20 years.
By the end of this week's issue of Stablecoin State, it should make sense to you too.
Three news items first.
Then the main feature: The Empire Strikes Back.
THIS WEEK
Brazil closes the back door
CLARITY Act - both sides win?
Meta to pay creators in USDC
Main story: The Empire Strikes Back
BRAZIL CLOSES THE BACK DOOR
Brazil's central bank published Resolution 561 on 30 April.
Effective 1 October, regulated electronic foreign exchange providers are barred from settling cross-border payments using stablecoins or any other crypto asset.
Stablecoins currently account for roughly 90% of Brazil's $6 to $8 billion monthly crypto-linked international transfer volume.
The resolution does not ban stablecoin ownership or domestic trading.
It closes one specific rail: the regulated cross-border payment rail.
The official rationale is monetary sovereignty and tax traceability.
The unofficial rationale is more pointed.
Brazil's tax authority has flagged that stablecoin-settled cross-border transactions are harder to track than traditional bank transfers.
The BCB (Banco Central Brasil) was watching $7 billion a month leave its supervision and decided enough.
Why it matters.
Brazil is the first major emerging-market sovereign to take direct regulatory action against stablecoins as a cross-border settlement rail.
The timing is not subtle.
Meta launched a pilot program for USDC creator payouts in Colombia and the Philippines the day before, on 29th April (see our 3rd story.)
The Latin American sovereign moved within 24 hours of a US Big Tech firm putting dollar stablecoins into the hands of creators in its regional neighbour.
Resolution 561 is the first concrete example of what a sovereign defence against digital dollarisation actually looks like.
The deeper signal:
Capital flight from emerging market currencies into dollar stablecoins is now happening at a scale that central banks can no longer ignore.
Brazil moved first. The watch list for who follows is short and obvious.
Argentina, Turkey, Nigeria, Lebanon, Vietnam.
Every country with a weak local currency and a population already voting with its wallet for more US dollars.
One side is building. The other side is bricking up windows.
CLARITY ACT - BOTH SIDES WIN?
The Senate Banking Committee's Clarity Act compromise dropped late on Friday.
Section 404 is the headline provision.
It bars digital asset service providers from paying any form of yield "economically or functionally equivalent" to interest on a bank deposit.
The market reaction was unambiguous.
Circle's stock closed up roughly 20% on Monday.
Coinbase rose 6%.
The bank lobby publicly described the outcome as supportive.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong's three-word post on X:
"Mark it up."
The 4.1% rate Coinbase has paid USDC holders is still legally available.
The legal wrapper changes. The economic substance does not.
Coinbase's $1.35 billion stablecoin revenue line is preserved.
Why it matters.
The bank lobby got the prohibition on passive yield it wanted.
"Park USDC, earn interest" is gone as a regulated US product.
But the crypto industry preserved the activity-rewards mechanism that drives most of its US distribution economics.
Circle's revenue model is intact. Coinbase's is intact.
The household choosing between a 0.5% federally insured bank deposit and a 4% rewards-eligible stablecoin balance backed 1:1 by US Treasury bills is making a trade that increasingly favours the second.
The collateral damage is the American commercial bank.
Section 404 will not stop deposit migration.
It only requires the migration to be relabelled.
The deposit franchise that has funded community and regional bank lending for a century will be structurally repriced.
Higher cost. Smaller pool. NIM compression.
The GENIUS Act legitimised stablecoins inside the US perimeter. It mandated fully-reserved structures that drive US Treasury demand.
The CLARITY Act is shaping up to preserve the activity-rewards mechanism that drives global adoption.
One legitimises the architecture. The other powers it.
META PUTS USDC IN THE HANDS OF CREATORS
On 29 April, Meta announced a pilot in Colombia and the Philippines to pay creators on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp in USDC.
Settlement runs on Solana and Polygon, with infrastructure provided by Stripe through its acquisition of Bridge.
Meta paid creators roughly $3 billion globally in 2025.
Polygon Labs has indicated potential expansion of the USDC pilot to more than 160 countries by the end of 2026.
The choice of launch markets is not random.
Colombia has lost meaningful peso value against the dollar over the past two years.
The Philippines has been managing persistent peso pressure and runs one of the world's largest remittance corridors.
Both economies have populations already paying for goods and saving in dollar-denominated digital assets.
Meta is not creating demand. It is meeting it.
Why it matters.
This is what the digital export of the dollar looks like at corporate scale.
Meta tried to issue its own currency once.
Libra (later ‘Diem’) was announced in 2019 and effectively killed by global regulatory opposition by 2022.
Meta learned that their strategy wasn’t wrong: the wrapper was.
A regulated third-party stablecoin issued by Circle, settled on public blockchains, with Stripe handling the rails, sidesteps the political objections that buried Libra.
The flow of funds is the part that connects us to the main feature.
Every dollar of USDC paid to a creator in Bogota or Manila is, on the issuer's balance sheet, a dollar that buys US Treasury bills.
Meta's $3 billion of creator payments, if migrated to USDC at scale, becomes $3 billion of new T-bill demand at the short end of the curve.
A US technology firm is now functionally a primary dealer for US government debt, via a stablecoin issuer most of its users have never heard of.
The US private sector is building the dollar export rail.
The US government is writing the rules that legitimise it.
And the demand it generates flows back into the US deficit.
Brazil read the same map and shut its door three days later.
MAIN STORY
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
“This deal is getting worse all the time” The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The Empire is pressing its advantage.
The deal is getting worse all the time.
And not just for one counterparty.
The American Bankers Association will know how Lando felt.
So will the Brazilian Central Bank, the European Central Bank, and every sovereign authority watching their cross-border payment rail get rerouted through a private US stablecoin issuer.
Two different constituencies.
One Empire.
One strategy.
Section 404 was not the fight.
It was the political price of getting a much larger architecture through the legislature without the bank lobby blocking it.
The architecture was already nearly complete.
The bank lobby had been arguing about the décor while the Treasury was reinforcing the foundations.
Four policy decisions in 14 months tell the real story.
January 2025. Trump signed an executive order banning the Federal Reserve from issuing a Central Bank Digital Currency. The framing was libertarian. The privacy lobby celebrated. What it actually did was clear the field for private dollar stablecoin issuance to operate without state competition.
March 2025. World Liberty Financial (WLFI) launched USD1, a stablecoin in which the Trump family holds a commercial position. MGX, an Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund, then used USD1 to settle a $2 billion investment into Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. This increased USD1’s market cap from zero to $2Bn overnight and placed WLFI in the global stablecoin race.
July 2025. The GENIUS Act passed. Algorithmic stablecoins were banned. Issuers were required to hold high-quality liquid assets in reserve, 1:1, attested monthly. The federal regulatory perimeter for stablecoins was now drawn.
This week. Section 404 of the CLARITY Act. The yield prohibition. The bank lobby's biggest stated objection, settled. But with huge carve-outs for the stablecoin industry.
The crypto press is treating these as four discrete stories.
They are not.
They are one strategy with one architect: The US Treasury Department
The objective is funding the spiralling US deficit.
These four decisions are the legal scaffolding that lets the funding mechanism operate.
THE NEW MARGINAL BUYER
The strategy makes sense once you understand the buyer problem.
The US is issuing record volumes of Treasury debt into a market where the historical buyers are stepping back.
Net issuance in fiscal 2025 ran at roughly $2 trillion.
Forecasts for 2026 and beyond are higher, not lower.
The deficit is structural. The funding requirement is permanent.
The marginal buyer pool that absorbed the last forty years of US issuance is no longer reliable.
Four channels mattered - all are constrained.
Foreign central banks were the anchor buyer through the petrodollar era.
Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Japan, China, Korea.
Surplus dollars from oil exports and trade flows recycled mechanically into Treasuries.
That mechanism has weakened. China has been a net seller for years. Japan is managing its own yield curve.
The largest sovereign wealth funds (NBIM, GIC, ADIA, CIC) are publicly diversifying away from USD as a strategic position.
The US freezing of Russia’s US Treasury bond holdings in 2022 in response to the Ukraine invasion accelerated these trends.
Sovereign reserve managers everywhere now price reserve weaponisation as a real risk.
The trade balance is the second-order recycling channel.
Foreign trade surpluses converted to dollars, dollars routed back into Treasuries.
Tariffs, reshoring, and US energy independence have all weakened the mechanism. Petrodollar recycling specifically is structurally lower than at any point since the 1970s.
US commercial banks were the post-2008 forced buyer.
Basel III liquidity coverage ratio rules required massive Treasury accumulation as high-quality liquid assets.
That accumulation is largely complete. US banks are recapitalised.
Marginal demand from this channel has flatlined. Senior ALM specialists have known this for two years.
Hedge funds running the Treasury basis trade are the current marginal buyer of size. Long Treasuries against short futures, leveraged through repo.
Tens to hundreds of billions of demand depending on the cycle. But the trade is risk-limited. Prime broker SLR constraints, quarter-end repo capacity, the March 2020 basis-trade unwind.
It works until it doesn't, and it cannot scale to absorb $2 trillion of annual issuance growth.
In twenty years trading sovereign debt across four currencies, I have not seen a marginal buyer pool this constrained while the supply pipeline is this aggressive.
Stablecoins fill the gap.
Tether is now among the top 20 holders of US Treasuries globally.
Circle is approaching that tier.
Combined stablecoin reserves are approaching $200 billion in T-bills, growing more than 30% year on year.
By the end of this decade, stablecoin issuers will potentially hold more US Treasuries than any sovereign except Japan.
The price sensitivity matters as much as the number.
A retail saver in Buenos Aires holding USDC is not yield-sensitive in the way a hedge fund or a central bank is.
They are buying dollar exposure.
The T-bill demand is a byproduct of that decision.
The same is true of the Vietnamese SME settling a supplier invoice in USDT, the Nigerian freelancer holding stablecoins because the naira lost value last year, and the creator in Manila now receiving USDC from Meta.
None of them are reading bid-to-cover ratios.
None of them care about the auction calendar.
This is the most attractive marginal buyer the Treasury has had since petrodollar recycling.
Price-insensitive
Demand-driven
Structurally tied to dollar exposure regardless of yield level.
The strategy is not a coincidence.
It is a response to a problem the architects can read off any auction sheet from the past three years, as central banks have diversified away from US debt.
THE STRATEGIC DUEL
The strategy comes into focus when you place it next to its only serious competitor.
The United States and China are the two largest economies in the world.
They are also the two governments that have made the most deliberate choices about digital monetary infrastructure.
Their choices are exact opposites.
The United States has banned the state-issued digital dollar and legitimised private dollar stablecoins.
China has banned private stablecoins on the mainland and made the state-issued e-CNY the only permitted retail digital currency.
China runs capital controls.
A globally circulating renminbi stablecoin is structurally incompatible with capital controls.
The state cannot allow renminbi to leave the perimeter through a private digital wrapper.
So the renminbi cannot be exported as a stablecoin. It can only circulate domestically, on a state-issued retail rail, where the PBoC controls every wallet, every transaction, and every settlement endpoint.
The United States runs no equivalent constraint.
Capital is free.
The dollar already circulates globally through correspondent banking, Eurodollar markets, and SWIFT.
A privately-issued dollar stablecoin is a digital extension of an analogue export the US has been running for eighty years.
The new wrapper does not threaten the architecture.
It reinforces it.
The result is the geopolitical fault line of the next decade.
One side has chosen to export its currency through private rails and accept the surveillance trade-off implicit in handing the architecture to Tether and Circle.
The other side has chosen to control its currency at home and accept the export trade-off implicit in not letting it travel.
Five years ago the conventional view was that the e-CNY would set the global agenda for digital money.
China launched first. China had scale. China had state coercion behind adoption.
It has not worked.
Domestic e-CNY transaction volume remains a fraction of Alipay and WeChat Pay.
Cross-border use through Project mBridge stalled when the BIS withdrew in 2024. The BRICS payment corridor remains aspirational.
The US strategy did not exist five years ago. It exists now.
And the global retail dollar holder has already chosen.
THE VIEW FROM THE TREASURY DESK: THE DOMESTIC LOSER
The architecture has a winner. It also has a loser.
The loser is the American commercial bank funding model.
Any treasurer's mental model starts with the deposit franchise. It is the single most valuable liability on a US commercial bank's balance sheet.
Non-operating retail and small-business deposits at community and regional banks have funded American lending at a structurally low cost for a century.
Cheap. Sticky. Insured.
Largely indifferent to short-term rate moves until the moves got large enough to matter.
That franchise is now being repriced.
Higher cost.
Smaller pool.
Permanently.
The mechanism is straightforward and Section 404 does not arrest it.
But the exposure is not evenly distributed across the banking system.
Money-centre banks and the largest regionals will adapt.
They have:
wealth management franchises
treasury services divisions
capital markets revenue lines
All diversify the deposit dependency.
JPMorgan, Citi, BofA, and the Wells/PNC tier will see margin compression.
They will not see existential pressure.
The exposure sits at the community and regional level.
Banks with $1bn to $50bn of assets, deposit-funded lending books, and a customer base that is now demographically and behaviourally optimising across rails.
The 2023 regional bank crisis (SVB, Signature, First Republic) was a preview of how fast deposits move now.
The mechanism that made that velocity possible - instant digital transfer, real-time information, no physical queue - is now structurally embedded in the next generation of deposit alternatives.
Stablecoin rewards are the next iteration.
The ABA argument that lost deposits get replaced by "higher-cost wholesale borrowing" is real but understated.
The deeper issue is concentration.
As deposits migrate, the community bank's deposit base shrinks but its lending book does not. The funding gap is filled with wholesale funding, FHLB advances, or brokered deposits, all of which cost dramatically more than retail deposits.
Blended funding cost rises faster than deposit volume falls.
NIM compression accelerates as funding mix deteriorates.
This is the dynamic ALM committees have been modelling since SVB, and what I did as a treasurer.
The next leg of it is now arriving.
The American Bankers Association does not lose fights it commits to.
It just lost one.
-Thanks for reading.
Mark
P.S. If you would like to contact our team just reply to this email - we read every response.
If this issue made you think differently about stablecoins, forward it to a CFO, treasurer, or finance leader who should be reading it.
The conversation is just getting started.
