Banks Fear Stablecoins: Protecting Central Bank Ties, Not Tech Ignorance

by

Stables CEO Says Migrant Flows Favor USDT, Driving 60% Cross-Border Dollar Demand

Bernardo Bilotta believes banks aren’t hesitant about stablecoins because of technical issues. Instead, they avoid them to maintain good relationships with central banks and other banks, which are generally cautious about risk.

Key Takeaways:

  • Bernardo Bilotta notes Asia handles 50% of global stablecoin flows, but banks fear regulatory risk.
  • Tether and eStable now enable local coin issuing for Stables to bridge the 99% USD market dominance.
  • By 2026, local stablecoins will likely serve as last-mile settlement rails for regional payouts.

The Dichotomy of Asia’s Stablecoin Rush

Asia reportedly drives nearly half of global stablecoin flows, powering cross-border trade and institutional liquidity. Yet in the major banks of Singapore, Hong Kong, and Jakarta, reception to stablecoins remains distinctly cold.

While some observers attribute this to a “generational gap” or a lack of technical understanding, Bernardo Bilotta, CEO and co-founder of Stables, argues that the reality is far more calculated. According to Bilotta, the reluctance of Asian banks to embrace stablecoins is not a failure of imagination but a masterclass in institutional self-preservation.

For a commercial bank, the most critical asset on the balance sheet is not cash or property; it is the relationship with the central bank. In many Southeast Asian markets, the regulatory environment for digital assets remains a moving target.

“Taking on stablecoin exposure, even just for processing, means taking on reputational risk with the regulator before the rules are fully settled,” Bilotta said. In an environment where guidance can tighten significantly from one quarter to the next with little warning, the risk of a regulatory pivot makes long-term infrastructure investment a gamble most banks are unwilling to take.

The Correspondent Banking Trap

Asian banks face oversight not only from their local regulators but also from a worldwide system. They depend on connections with banks in New York and London to enable international trade.

Bilotta points out a harsh reality of the current global financial plumbing: Compliance teams in Western financial hubs are notoriously risk-averse. If a bank in Jakarta or Bangkok begins dabbling in stablecoins, it risks being flagged by its Western partners. The threat of having a correspondent relationship terminated—effectively cutting a bank off from the U.S. dollar or euro markets—is a survival logic that far outweighs the potential profits of stablecoin integration.

Even for banks willing to look past the risk, a new hurdle has emerged: regulatory fragmentation. Across Asia, jurisdictions are taking vastly different paths. Singapore, for instance, has embedded stablecoin rules into its existing Payment Services Act, while Hong Kong recently enacted a standalone Stablecoins Ordinance.

Some experts believe these separate regulatory systems are slowing progress, because a digital asset approved in one location might encounter problems nearby. But Bilotta sees this not as an obstacle, but as a temporary step towards greater consistency.

“Framing it as purely a problem misses what’s actually happening,” Bilotta said. “Singapore and Hong Kong have different approaches to the same goal: treating stablecoins as regulated payment instruments. The underlying principles—reserve backing, redemption rights, and AML compliance—are converging.”

The Dollar’s Unshakable Throne

One of the most persistent critiques of the digital asset industry is its overreliance on the U.S. dollar. Currently, 99% of the stablecoin market is pegged to the greenback, while local-currency tokens—such as those pegged to the yen or Singapore dollar—suffer from thin liquidity and high slippage costs.

Does this represent a failure of the technology? Not according to Bilotta. He argues that the dominance of dollar-pegged stablecoins like USDT is not an accident of history but a reflection of fundamental market demand.

“In emerging markets across Asia, people actively seek dollar exposure,” Bilotta said. “A migrant worker sending money from Singapore to the Philippines wants the stability of the dollar, not a local currency token. They use USDT because they want dollars, not because they lack a local alternative.”

While Bilotta does not foresee local-currency stablecoins challenging the dollar’s dominance in cross-border flows anytime soon, he sees a clear path for their utility: the last-mile settlement layer.

Aligning its corporate strategy with these insights, Stables recently announced a strategic partnership with eStable to integrate institutional-grade banking infrastructure and local stablecoin issuing capabilities. This integration expands Stables’ core offering beyond USDT corridors, adding institutional settlement and local-currency stablecoin issuance backed by USDT and Tether’s Hadron.

Meanwhile, Japan’s move toward regulated bank-issued tokens and Singapore’s Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)-regulated framework are paving the way for JPY and SGD stablecoins to serve specific domestic use cases. The real breakthrough happens when these local tokens act as the bridge, converting global USDT flows into local currency at the exact point of payout. Bilotta suggests that is where liquidity will finally deepen and real utility will live.

The status quo in Asia is currently a tense standoff. On one side is the undeniable gravity of transaction volume; on the other are the rigid requirements of legacy compliance.

Bilotta explains that banks will stick with the way things are until the risks of *not* acting become greater than the risks of trying new things. Asian banks’ careful approach isn’t unreasonable – it’s a way to protect themselves. But as the underlying technology becomes more reliable and local digital currencies make transactions easier, these banks will face increasing pressure to adapt. The real challenge for Asian banks isn’t understanding the technology itself, but deciding how long they can keep focusing on simply staying afloat instead of innovating for the future.

Read More

2026-05-03 08:28