Connect with us

Business

America must harness stablecoins to future-proof the dollar

Published

on



With Congress just passing the federal budget, lawmakers will have an opportunity to tackle long-term financial challenges outside of crisis mode. One such challenge—and opportunity—is the rise of stablecoins: privately issued digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar. Stablecoins have rapidly grown into a hundreds-of-billions market, facilitating billions in transactions, but they’ve lacked a comprehensive U.S. regulatory framework​. Fortunately, Washington is signaling new openness to digital assets—evidenced by President Trump announcing the establishment of a strategic digital asset reserve for the nation​. Creating the requisite clarity will unlock a new era of competition and innovation among banks.

Stablecoins are a strategic extension of U.S. monetary influence. Around 99% of stablecoin volume today is tied to the U.S. dollar, exporting dollar utility onto international, decentralized blockchain networks. A stablecoin market with the right guardrails can strengthen the U.S. dollar’s dominance in global finance​. If people around the world can easily hold and transact in tokenized dollars, the dollar remains the go-to currency even in a digitizing economy. Recent congressional hearings echo this point—up to $5 trillion in assets could move into stablecoins and digital money by 2030, up from roughly $200 billion now​. If the U.S. fails to act, it risks “becoming the rust belt of the financial industry,” as one fintech CEO warned​

Other jurisdictions aren’t standing still: Europe, the U.K., Japan, Singapore, and the UAE are developing stablecoin frameworks​. Some of these could even allow new dollar-pegged tokens issued offshore​—potentially eroding U.S. oversight. In short, America must lead on stablecoins or get pressured by Europe’s Digital Euro and other central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that threaten both the private banking ecosystem and individual sovereignty in their strictest form. My research, for example, shows that CBDCs to date have not had any positive effects on growing GDP or reducing inflation, but have had negative effects on individuals’ financial well-being.

Ideally, various regulated institutions—banks, trust companies, fintech startups—could issue “tokenized dollars” under a common set of rules. Before the 1900s, state governments had the primary authority over banking. While that led to fragmentation and problems, with the right federal architecture, blockchain allows banks to offer differentiated products and a version of what existed pre-1900—their own type of stablecoin that differs in security, yield, and/or other amenities—while still keeping the value pegged to the dollar. More broadly, there is a large body of academic research showing how stablecoins drive down transaction costs, speed up settlement times, and broaden financial inclusion through new services. 

In absence of federal action, we risk a patchwork of state-by-state rules or even de facto regulation by enforcement, which creates uncertainty for entrepreneurs and consumers alike. The Stablecoin Tethering and Bank Licensing Enforcement (STABLE) Act was introduced in the House in 2020, requiring any company issuing a stablecoin to obtain a bank charter and abide by bank regulations, including approval from the Federal Reserve and FDIC before launching a stablecoin, and to hold FDIC insurance or Federal Reserve deposits as reserves, making stablecoin issuers regulated like banks to protect consumers and the monetary system. 

However, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill has said, the goal should be to modernize payments and promote financial access without government overreach​. Notably, Hill contrasted private-sector stablecoin innovation with the alternative “competing vision” of a government-run digital dollar (central bank digital currency) that could crowd out private innovation​. And, the STABLE Act could be too draconian, penalizing non-bank entities. To that end, the recent bipartisan effort in the Senate—the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act of 2025 (GENIUS Act)—has gained momentum.

In practice, the GENUIS Act could allow a regulated fintech or trust company to issue a dollar stablecoin under state supervision, so long as it complies with stringent requirements mirroring federal bank-like rules on liquidity and risk. This kind of flexibility, paired with robust standards, can prevent market fragmentation by bringing all credible stablecoin issuers under a regulatory “big tent.” It would also prevent any single point of failure: If one issuer falters, others operating under the same framework can pick up the slack, keeping the system stable.

Critics often voice concerns that digital currencies could enable illicit activity. But in reality, blockchain technology offers more transparency, not less, when properly leveraged. Every transaction on a public blockchain is recorded on an immutable ledger. Law enforcement has successfully traced and busted criminal networks by following the on-chain trail—something much harder to do with cash stuffed in duffel bags. In fact, blockchain’s decentralized ledger offers the potential for even greater transparency, security, and efficiency​. 

Following the momentum from the White House, Congress has a running start on crafting rules that bring stability and clarity to this market now that the budget has passed. Lawmakers should refine and pass a comprehensive stablecoin bill that incorporates the best of both approaches—the prudential rigor of the bank-centric model and the innovation-friendly flexibility of a dual license system. Done right, stablecoin legislation will reinforce the dollar’s role as the bedrock of global finance in the digital age, unlock new fintech innovation and competition domestically, and enhance financial integrity.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s special envoy involved in talks to end Russia’s war on Ukraine says ‘I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy’

Published

on

White House envoy Steve Witkoff has praised Vladimir Putin in glowing terms as trustworthy and said the Russian leader told him he had prayed for his “friend” US President Donald Trump when he was shot.

Witkoff met with Putin over multiple hours last week in Moscow and told US media the talks—which involved discussions about forging a path towards ending Russia’s war in Ukraine—were constructive and “solution-based.”

In an interview with right-wing podcast host Tucker Carlson, the envoy said he has come to regard Putin as not a “bad guy,” and that the Russian president was a “great” leader seeking to end Moscow’s deadly three-year conflict with Kyiv.

“I liked him. I thought he was straight up with me,” Witkoff said in the interview aired Friday.

“I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy. That is a complicated situation, that war, and all the ingredients that led up to it.”

He also described a “personal” element of the discussion in which Putin recalled his reaction to the assassination attempt on Trump in July 2024 as the Republican held a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Putin “told me a story… about how when the president was shot, he went to his local church and met with his priest and prayed for the president,” Witkoff said.

“Not because… he could become the president of the United States, but because he had a friendship with him and he was praying for his friend.”

Putin had commissioned a “beautiful portrait of President Trump from a leading Russian artist,” and asked the envoy to take it home to Trump, Witkoff added.

“It was such a gracious moment.”

Witkoff’s gushing praise of a president long seen by the United States as an autocratic adversary highlights the dramatic turn in Washington’s approach to dealings with the Kremlin since Trump took office for a second presidential term.

Witkoff also said Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky was facing tough choices ahead and that the president should recognize it is time for him to “get a deal done” with Moscow.

Zelensky is “in a very, very difficult situation, but he’s up against a nuclear nation,” Witkoff said. “So he’s got to know that he’s going to get ground down. Now is the best time for him to get a deal done.”

Witkoff’s comments essentially were delivered on friendly ground. Carlson is a controversial former Fox News star who conducted what was widely considered to be a rare but soft interview with Putin last year.

Carlson has also been a leading propagator of pro-Kremlin narratives in the United States.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Tesla investors at a loss as Elon Musk drags down stock price: ‘This time it feels different’

Published

on



  • Tesla is in uncharted territory now that it appears to have shed its aura of invincibility. Punters find themselves in the dark about the stock’s outlook, with Morgan Stanley telling clients the price could just as easily triple to $800 in the coming months as it could drop to $200.

Late last month, Simon Hale landed in hot water with his compliance department at Wellington Altus Private Wealth. Due to the sharp rally in Tesla, his holdings of the EV giant had become too valuable relative to the portfolio managed by the Montreal-based institutional investor, and it needed trimming to diversify risk. 

“That’s no problem any more,” Hale glumly told fellow investors during an online discussion last week. The stock, beaten down over the past fortnight, had just plunged a further 15% in one session, solving his quandary without the portfolio manager ever having to lift a finger.

CEO Elon Musk’s attempt to replicate Argentine president Javier Milei by cutting government spending with a chainsaw has sparked a wave of outcry across the United States, as has his emphatic embrace of Germany’s far-right AfD party

Musk is now trying to rally his troops’ morale. But the backlash has been so fierce that it’s unclear whether the stock can recover the aura of infallibility it first earned following 2020’s stratospheric rally, when the CEO could swiftly silence doubts with a bold prediction or two.

It’s led to declining sales, violent protests, petty vandalism and even outright arson.

In the process, Tesla is now down 9% from election day, when it initially launched a furious rally to touch an all-time high in mid-December, and a staggering 46% since Trump took office.

Musk’s fans regularly convene on his X platform to share info about all things Tesla, but lately these pep talks sound more like group therapy sessions where small stockholders affirm why they are right to buy more shares at prices where board directors, including chairwoman Robyn Denholm, have already sold a collective $100 million recently. 

Hale then dropped the boom on others listening: Jewish investors were pressuring him to sell their Tesla stock. 

“They really didn’t like what happened in terms of the salute,” he confided. “I’m hearing this over and over again from wealthy clients, and clients in Europe—that Elon is supporting the AfD.”

‘Tesla shame’ means this time, the slump feels different

In a way, it all feels familiar, as Tesla investors have been here before.

After the Twitter acquisition in October 2022, when fears persisted Musk might cover losses at the social media company by liquidating Tesla stock, the price dropped all the way down to $100 a share.

A second hefty drop occurred just this time last year, after it had become completely clear that Tesla was, in fact, a growth stock that had stopped growing

Yet each time Musk could calm collective nerves and put a floor under the price.

First he promised he was done selling Tesla stock through 2024 (a pledge he kept), while later he accelerated the timetable for the launch of a new entry level model to meet investor demands (there the jury is still out). 

Now, there are so many persisting concerns, not to mention a growing sense of “Tesla shame” among owners, that there’s no easy silver bullet solution.

“While worries around the Tesla brand have been on investor minds for the last three years, this time feels different,” Emmanuel Rosner of Wolfe Research told clients.

Tesla drivers are afraid to leave their cars unattended

Tesla no longer has this nimbus of infallibility it acquired during the pandemic-era craze when everything Musk did was magic.

At the time, he even managed to skilfully skirt the semiconductor crunch that ground large parts of the auto industry to a halt. But now, Musk himself is the source of the crisis.

Just before Hale took the mike to commiserate over the plunge in the stock, Tesla owner and investor Herbert Ong confessed in the same online forum that many of his friends in the Pacific Northwest were now hesitant to be seen in their vehicle

“Some of them have said ‘I will not choose to drive my Cybertruck downtown Seattle anymore for the time being.’ They’re afraid,” Ong admitted.

The company did not respond to a request from Fortune for comment.

But it’s difficult to see how it can convince new buyers to get behind the wheel of a Tesla so long as current drivers are unwilling to leave their parked car unattended for fear of reprisals.

Tesla shares could be cheap if you zoom out all the way to 2030

Bulls are now at a total loss as to where the stock is headed.

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas literally told clients in a research note last week that while it could soar to $800 within the next 12 months, it could just as easily sink to $200. 

Instead, the best way to think about Tesla is to zoom out. If you look at it on a long enough timeline, it’s cheap, with shares only valued 19 times forecast 2030 earnings, Jonas insisted.

Still, the sell-side analyst needed to give his clients at least some inkling about how it should trade in the meantime, so he covered his bets. 

“We expect the key drivers of the stock will continue to include a wide scope of forces ranging from commercial, macro, geopolitical, technological, strategic and management specific,” he wrote. In other words, everything short of the Earth’s gravitational pull could move the price.

Wolfe’s Emmanuel Rosner argued he couldn’t be certain of the direction in the coming weeks either—not because there were far too many factors tugging at the stock, but rather just the opposite: “At this point, the company is in the midst of a catalyst vacuum.” 

‘I don’t think it’s a great thing to alienate half the population’

In the meantime, even Musk’s biggest fans are taking some amount of money off the table.

Asset manager Ron Baron continues to believe in the entrepreneur, but he too was forced to sell Tesla last month at the direct behest of his clients. 

Now, his firm only has about two-thirds of the stock it originally held, which he bought a decade ago for an average of $11- $12.

“Everyone has to deal with certain clientele,” Ron Baron told CNBC, quickly adding he did not sell any from his own personal holdings.

While he blamed the sales drop on the recent production shutdown, he permitted himself the wish that Musk would be a “little less visible” amid the controversy.

In between praise, he snuck in a message to the CEO: “I don’t think it’s a great thing to alienate half the population.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

F-47 will likely be Trump’s ‘most important defense decision’

Published

on

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.