TLDR
- Bailey says stablecoins could separate money from credit, reducing reliance on commercial banks.
-
The Bank of England plans to allow stablecoins access to central bank accounts.
-
Bailey calls for scrutiny of stablecoins, emphasizing the need for risk-free backing assets.
-
Industry groups criticize proposed stablecoin ownership limits, arguing it could harm innovation.
Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey has suggested that stablecoins could reduce the UK’s reliance on commercial banks, offering a potential shift in the country’s financial landscape. In an article published in the Financial Times, Bailey argued that stablecoins, with their decentralized nature, could separate money from credit provision. This move could allow for a financial system where banks and stablecoins coexist, with non-bank institutions handling a larger portion of credit provision.
Bailey’s remarks signal a more favorable view toward stablecoins, which had previously faced skepticism from the Bank of England. While acknowledging the need for thorough consideration of this shift, he pointed out that the current financial system, which relies on fractional reserve banking, could be restructured to allow for greater use of digital assets like stablecoins.
Current Banking System and Its Limitations
Bailey highlighted the limitations of the current financial system, where banks create money by lending a portion of customer deposits through fractional reserve banking. In this system, banks hold only a fraction of deposits in reserve and lend the rest, generating new money through credit expansion.
He noted that most of the assets backing commercial bank money are not risk-free, as they are loans to individuals and companies.
He suggested that there could be a way to partially separate money from credit, with stablecoins playing a larger role in providing “money” while banks focus on lending activities. This could lead to a system where stablecoins and banks co-exist, allowing non-bank financial entities to handle more of the credit provision, which could reduce reliance on traditional banks.
Stablecoins and the Bank of England’s Regulatory Shift
As part of its evolving stance on stablecoins, the Bank of England is preparing to release a consultation paper that will address the country’s future stablecoin regime. The paper is expected to set clear guidelines for stablecoins that are widely used for everyday payments or for settling tokenized financial markets.
One of Bailey’s key proposals is that widely used UK stablecoins should have access to accounts at the Bank of England. This would reinforce their status as money, making them more integral to the financial system.
Bailey emphasized that this new regime would ensure that stablecoins can be used safely, maintaining financial stability while promoting innovation in the payment systems. He also noted that while the idea of integrating stablecoins into the central banking system is promising, it requires careful management to avoid disrupting the link between money and credit creation, which is central to economic activity.
Industry Pushback and Stablecoin Ownership Limits
Despite Bailey’s more favorable outlook on stablecoins, the Bank of England’s proposals have faced significant pushback from the cryptocurrency industry. One of the major points of contention is the proposed caps on stablecoin holdings.
The Bank of England has suggested imposing ownership limits of £10,000 to £20,000 for individuals and up to £10 million for businesses. These limits are intended to mitigate financial stability risks stemming from large and rapid outflows of deposits from the banking sector.
However, critics from the crypto industry argue that such caps would stifle innovation and hurt the adoption of stablecoins. Tom Duff Gordon, vice-president of international policy at Coinbase, argued that no other major jurisdiction has imposed similar restrictions, and that the UK could fall behind in the global race for stablecoin adoption. Other industry representatives have also criticized the limits, calling them impractical and costly to enforce.
