Stablecoins: Tether Challenges the BIS’s Vision of Tokenized Deposits

Stablecoins are at the heart of a debate on digital currency. Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, contrasts their model with tokenized bank deposits. According to him, these two forms of money do not rely on the same guarantees. He believes that reserves in U.S. Treasury bonds offer more solid coverage. This position responds to criticism from the Bank for International Settlements, which advocates tokenized deposits. The debate concerns the reserves and the future of finance.

Tether contrasts two models with stablecoins

Paolo Ardoino, CEO of Tether, challenges recent statements by Pablo Hernandez de Cos, General Manager of the BIS. He believes that stablecoins face several limits to become a widely credible currency. He cites their convertibility, supply, and interoperability. The BIS also mentions risks related to certain criminal activities.

For Ardoino, the central question mainly concerns the composition of reserves. According to him, stablecoins can rely almost entirely on US Treasury bonds. Tokenized bank deposits, on the other hand, present coverage in liquid assets limited to 10%. This difference becomes essential when users compare available guarantees.

Pablo Hernandez de Cos defends a different approach to financial tokenization. According to the BIS official, tokenized deposits offer a more direct way to leverage this technology. This solution would also preserve the foundations of the existing monetary system. The disagreement therefore opposes two visions of digital money and its reserves.

Reserves and USDT adoption fuel the debate

In this confrontation, Ardoino presents stablecoins as an alternative based on a different reserve. He asserts that their coverage by US Treasury bonds is a decisive advantage. This comparison directly targets the fractional model associated with tokenized bank deposits. For Tether, the question therefore concerns the assets held and the technology used.

USDT adoption brings another element to the debate. Tether’s product exceeds 183 billion dollars in market capitalization according to CoinGecko data. Ardoino also highlights its importance in several emerging markets. According to him, several developed economies heavily depend on USDT for their domestic and foreign exchanges.

This growth of stablecoins fuels reflection on their financial role. Their development now attracts the attention of monetary and banking actors. At the same time, their detractors highlight difficulties with conversion, interoperability, and supply. These criticisms remain central to the arguments advanced by the BIS.

The CLARITY Act adds a political dimension

Stablecoins participate in discussions around the CLARITY Act. Some banks fear a decrease in deposits. Their concern concerns the rewards offered by crypto platforms. It could encourage customers to move their savings.

Ardoino directly raises the question of a transfer of savings to this asset class. He wonders about the consequences for the financial system if users consider them more reliable. This hypothesis opposes full reserves and fractional mechanisms. He presents this development as still exploratory.

The confrontation between Tether and the BIS is expected to continue around stablecoins. Ardoino insists on coverage by US Treasury bonds. The Bank for International Settlements favors tokenized deposits. Upcoming discussions could clarify differences between these approaches.

In the short term, the debate should therefore remain focused on reserves, convertibility, and the role of banks. The issue will be to determine how these models can coexist with existing financial infrastructures. The question of trust will remain linked to the nature of guarantees. For Ardoino, stablecoins can already represent a direct alternative to tokenized deposits.