2026-01-14 05:33:55

A senior executive at a major financial institution recently stated that stablecoins with yield features pose significant risks. These products essentially replicate the traditional bank deposit + interest payment model but lack the risk control systems developed through centuries of financial regulation. The core issue is: since they provide deposit-like functions, they should be subject to the same regulatory responsibilities—yet most stablecoin projects currently fail to meet this standard.

From a financial stability perspective, this could indeed evolve into a version of "shadow banking." Without reserve requirements, stress testing, or systemic risk prevention mechanisms, relying solely on technology and capital backing is far from sufficient. Industry insiders point out that as long as stablecoins promise returns to users, they will inevitably face the same risk pricing and regulatory scrutiny as traditional banks—and this is precisely the weak point in the current industry.

In response, many institutions are observing and re-evaluating the positioning of their stablecoin-related businesses.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

0xSoulless

· 14h ago

It's all nonsense. Large funds have already run away, and we're still here discussing risk prevention...

View OriginalReply0

RugDocDetective

· 14h ago

Coming back with this set again? If stablecoins have interest, they should follow the banking model. This logic makes perfect sense. Basically, they want to profit from retail investors without being regulated, but they can't enjoy the full cake. The shadow banking model really hits the core... How can they operate without reserves? Large institutions are starting to watch closely; the next step is definitely to take action. These projects will eventually rug pull, I bet five bucks. Speaking of which, no matter how advanced the technology is, it can't replace a risk control system. Let's wait and see which stablecoin will be the first to blow up.

View OriginalReply0

TokenVelocity

· 14h ago

In simple terms, the yield stablecoin scheme is just playing finance under the guise of technology. Without regulatory barriers, a collapse is inevitable. Pumping up the technology until no one dares to take over—that's the real risk. Shadow banking 2.0, but no one takes the blame. How can it be stable? Traditional banks can survive for hundreds of years, but these projects will struggle to get through the next cycle. Institutions are fleeing, retail investors are still rushing in. This situation is quite ironic. Daring to promise returns without reserves? Only a fool would believe that logic. Rather than saying regulation is lacking, it's more accurate to say this shouldn't exist at all. So, who is ultimately bearing the risk for these coins?

View OriginalReply0

OneBlockAtATime

· 14h ago

Basically, isn't this just playing with fire? Yield staking stablecoins is essentially a Ponzi scheme. Without real assets backing it, promising returns is just a matter of time before it collapses. Regulators will come sooner or later. Instead of waiting to die, it's better to embrace it proactively, but most projects can't do that right now. This down cycle should clear out a lot of junk projects; only those that survive are the real deal. Shadow banking 2.0? Pretty much, it's the blockchain version of the subprime mortgage crisis. Everyone is watching and waiting. Whoever admits defeat first will survive longer. That's why I only hold BTC and ETH. The rest, forget it. Institutions are fleeing, and who dares to take on yield farming? It's called innovation in the best case, but in less flattering terms, it's just a new way to fleece retail investors. I've seen the problems for a long time—nobody wants to be the first to tell the truth. Now that I realize it, it's a bit late. Stablecoins with yields = Federal Reserve with inflation; the logic is the same—it's just a scam to fool beginners.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 14h ago

Here we go again with this old rhetoric. Basically, the regulators haven't figured out how to handle it yet. Now they're just shifting the blame to stablecoins. That's right, no reserve funds, no stress testing. Isn't that just gambling? I've long been skeptical of stablecoins promising stable returns. Why should they dare to promise yields like banks? A replica of shadow banking? That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it? The institutions are starting to retreat, and this signal is quite interesting... The real question is, who will take the blame? The users or the issuers? I agree. Without a regulatory framework, there's no point in messing around with financial products. That's why I only use cold wallets and avoid yield farming.

View OriginalReply0

GasDevourer

· 14h ago

Here we go again with this set? The stablecoin yield part has long been a ticking time bomb. Anyone who touches it is doomed. --- Listen, listen, listen. Dare to give dividends without reserve requirements. Isn't that funny? --- Shadow banking 2.0? Really, one collapse after another, what a rhythm. --- So ultimately, it's a regulatory issue. Maybe the entry barriers are just castles in the air. --- I said stablecoin yields are too high, and I was criticized. Now you all regret it, right? --- Rely on technology and capital? Ha, those words are quite naive. --- Big institutions are only now waking up. Why didn't they act earlier?

View OriginalReply0