x
Key Takeaways
Wall Street Journal commentator Greg Ip argued stablecoins resemble historical forms of “private money” that could introduce systemic risks.
Coinbase executives defended the GENIUS and CLARITY Acts.
The debate comes as the CLARITY Act faces Senate scheduling pressure and criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren.
As stablecoin regulation remains a point of contention in Washington, a Wall Street Journal commentary has questioned whether privately issued digital dollars could pose risks to the broader economy.
However, Coinbase executives pushed back, arguing that the upcoming CLARITY Act already addresses many of the vulnerabilities critics fear.
In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published on Monday, WSJ chief economics commentator Greg Ip argued that stablecoins represent a modern form of “private money.”
Ip argued that they could recreate some of the fragilities seen in earlier eras of loosely regulated finance.
In the piece, Ip said that while stablecoins promise faster and cheaper payments, “no legislation can fully remove risk that is intrinsic to the design of stablecoins.”
The article compared stablecoins to historical episodes, including the 19th-century “free banking” era and the 2008 money market fund crisis.
Ip warned that stablecoin issuers could eventually face incentives to “reach for yield” by holding riskier reserve assets.
The piece also questioned whether stablecoins can maintain the “singleness” of money — the principle that one dollar should always equal one dollar across the financial system.
He noted how tokens such as Tether’s USDT and Circle’s USDC have periodically traded below their dollar pegs during periods of market stress.
Ip’s commentary comes as lawmakers advance the GENIUS Act and CLARITY Act, two pieces of US legislation intended to establish federal rules for payment stablecoins and broader crypto market structure.
Coinbase executives responded publicly on X, arguing the Journal article overlooked how heavily the existing US monetary system already depends on privately issued forms of money.
Faryar Shirzad, Coinbase’s chief policy officer, said roughly 90% of the US M2 money supply already consists of private liabilities such as commercial bank deposits and money market fund shares.
He argued that the GENIUS Act creates a similarly tailored framework for stablecoins, including requirements for 1:1 reserves and federal supervision.
“‘Private money’ isn’t the exception in our system — it’s the rule,” Shirzad wrote.
He added that GENIUS stablecoin issuers would be prohibited from engaging in bank-like activities such as lending.
Shirzad also rejected comparisons between stablecoins and historical free-banking failures, arguing that pre-Civil War bank notes lacked consistent federal oversight.
By contrast, he said, GENIUS-compliant stablecoins would be restricted to holding cash and other highly liquid reserve assets.
Meanwhile, Coinbase Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal echoed those arguments, writing on X that private systems are not inherently dangerous if properly supervised.
“Money that’s ‘private’ isn’t any more inherently risky than healthcare or security or transportation that’s private,” Grewal said.
Adding: “It’s how you manage that risk, as well as access and oversight, that matters.”
The exchange’s response reflects a broader push by the crypto industry to frame stablecoins as regulated payment infrastructure.
Supporters of the GENIUS Act argue that strict reserve requirements differentiate payment stablecoins from banks and money market funds.
Critics, however, continue to warn that rapid adoption could eventually create new forms of systemic risk if stablecoins become deeply integrated into mainstream finance.
The debate comes as Congress faces mounting pressure to advance the act before Washington’s August recess.
Lawmakers are confronting an increasingly compressed legislative calendar as competing priorities pile up in Washington.
Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett wrote on X last week that the stalled reconciliation process could complicate efforts.
“This means the Clarity Act will now be competing for floor time in June with reconciliation, FISA, as well as the housing bill that passed the House this week,” Terrett wrote on May 21.
According to congressional schedules, lawmakers have roughly four working weeks in June and only three in July before the August recess begins, leaving limited room for several high-profile legislative fights.
A delay beyond August could revive concerns that political divisions may once again derail reform efforts ahead of the 2026 midterm election cycle.
The debate also comes months after the International Monetary Fund intensified its own warnings about stablecoins in its October financial stability report.
The IMF identified three major risks tied to growing stablecoin adoption.
First, it warned that a large-scale redemption event could force issuers to rapidly liquidate Treasury reserves, potentially creating spillover effects in broader bond markets.
Second, the IMF warned that dollar-denominated stablecoins could weaken monetary sovereignty in emerging markets by accelerating “digital dollarization.”
The report said easy access to digital dollars could undermine local monetary policy in countries with weak currencies.
Third, the IMF highlighted the risk of “credit disintermediation,” arguing that widespread adoption of yield-bearing stablecoin products could pull deposits away from traditional banks.
These risks were directly targeted by US lawmakers when they passed the regulation last July.
To prevent a sudden panic from crashing the bond market, the law forces companies to back their stablecoins 1:1 with only the safest assets. Issuers must hold cash or short-term government bonds and prove it through mandatory monthly audits.
The legislation also protects traditional banks from losing too many customer deposits.
It stops non-bank crypto firms from offering interest-earning products, keeping stablecoins focused purely on everyday digital payments rather than high-yield savings.
