Stablecoins Are Becoming a Fight Over the Future of Digital Money: Interview With BitGo COO Jody Mettler

With stablecoins becoming more integrated into traditional finance, discussions about their regulation are shifting. The focus is less on cryptocurrency itself and more on how we’ll handle payments worldwide in the future.

I’ve been watching the regulatory landscape closely, and it’s getting interesting. Just recently, the Bank of England’s Governor, Andrew Bailey, hinted that there might be a real conflict brewing between global regulators and the US when it comes to rules for stablecoins. It seems like Europe, the US, and other regions are starting to take very different approaches, and that divergence is becoming pretty clear.

But for some, this disagreement reflects a deeper question.

CryptoPotato spoke with Jody Mettler, COO of BitGo and President of BitGo Trust. She explained that the future of digital currency hinges on whether it evolves into one unified, interconnected global system, or breaks down into separate networks driven by individual countries’ goals – things like controlling their own money, setting financial rules, keeping assets safe, finalizing transactions, and protecting consumers.

In this interview, Mettler explains how the MiCA regulation is building the foundation for digital assets in Europe. He highlights that institutions want the same security and reliability from crypto as they expect from traditional banking, and explores how stablecoins could push banks, issuers, custodians, and payment companies to redesign international financial systems.

Governor Andrew Bailey suggested global financial regulators and the U.S. might clash over how to regulate stablecoins. The core of this potential conflict seems to revolve around a few key issues: protecting consumers, ensuring the stability of the financial system, maintaining the U.S. dollar’s position as the world’s primary currency, or controlling the systems used for making payments. What’s the most likely reason for this disagreement?

The discussion has expanded far beyond just regulating cryptocurrencies. At its core, the debate—which Andrew Bailey calls a “wrestle”—is about how we build the future of payment systems and which global standards will ultimately govern them.

At BitGo, we’ve found that institutions aren’t necessarily demanding new crypto regulations. Instead, they want the same level of security and reliability from crypto custody, transaction completion, and asset retrieval that they expect from traditional banks. This is where differences in regulation become important. The U.S. seems to be favoring a flexible approach that allows for innovation and broad participation, while Europe, through its MiCA regulations, is creating a stricter system focused on financial stability, strong reserve standards, and careful control over who can enter the market.

Europe is also actively working towards financial independence, particularly in the digital currency space. This is evident in their efforts to develop digital euros and regulated stablecoins that aren’t overly reliant on the U.S. dollar and American payment systems. However, achieving this goal requires a solid foundation – things like readily available funds, secure storage, connections to traditional banking, and reliable systems for completing transactions, all at a large scale for institutions to use.

The core issue isn’t about specific rules within the policy, but rather the future of global digital money. Will it become one unified system that works seamlessly across borders, or will it fragment into separate financial networks tied to different regions?

What does it really mean for companies that issue, hold, or handle stablecoins – like banks and payment firms – when people say the U.S. and Europe are taking different approaches to regulating them?

As a crypto investor, I’m seeing a shift in the conversation. It’s less about ‘crypto versus traditional finance’ now, and more about how different countries are deciding to regulate and build out the infrastructure for digital currencies. It’s becoming a regional game of defining the rules, rather than a fight between two systems.

Europe is ahead of the U.S. with its MiCA regulations. MiCA doesn’t just focus on licensing crypto companies; it establishes consistent rules for how digital assets are handled – including storage, creation, trading, and transfer – across all of the European Union. This creates a more stable and predictable environment for businesses, as they only need to follow one set of rules instead of 27 different national interpretations. In the U.S., lawmakers are still working to define the rules of the crypto market through legislation like the Clarity Act, meaning the specific roles of different companies are still being debated.

For BitGo in Europe, the impact of new regulations is very clear. Financial institutions aren’t focused on general regulatory questions; they want to know exactly how their assets will be protected if a company fails, how transactions can be completed securely across different platforms, and how they can easily transfer funds between trusted partners without constantly reassessing risk as they move between countries. MiCA, the new European regulatory framework, is important because it transforms policy goals into concrete rules for asset custody and market access.

There’s a growing conflict between how global organizations want to handle digital assets and the way the underlying technology is actually developing. These organizations prefer one universal system, but the infrastructure is becoming more localized to different regions. This raises the question of whether we’ll eventually have a single, worldwide standard for things like trading, safekeeping, and finalizing transactions, or if we’ll end up with separate, but connected, regional systems.

If stablecoins become widely used for international payments, how will things work when different countries have different rules about how those stablecoins are backed, exchanged for money, kept safe, and overseen?

MiCA simplifies things by establishing a unified set of rules for crypto across Europe, giving businesses a more predictable and stable environment to work in. This eliminates a lot of the inconsistencies that previously existed within the EU. However, outside of Europe, different countries still have their own unique regulations.

As a crypto investor, what really matters to me is how smoothly things work when sending money across borders. It all comes down to trusting that my crypto will act consistently, no matter where it’s being sent or which exchanges are involved. If there’s any uncertainty about how it’ll behave, it creates problems with getting the best prices and finalizing transactions, even if those markets are connected.

As a researcher following BitGo, I’ve learned their primary focus in Europe is assisting institutions in navigating the MiCA regulations while maintaining access to global financial markets. Essentially, they’re providing regulated custody solutions, ensuring client assets are properly segregated, and building the infrastructure needed to seamlessly move and settle assets across different markets without requiring constant, costly overhauls.

Will we see one worldwide stablecoin system emerge, or will different regions develop their own – like dollar-based stablecoins following U.S. regulations, euro stablecoins under EU rules, and similar local versions in other countries?

We’ll likely see different regions develop their own digital financial systems first. While the U.S. dollar will probably remain the dominant currency for global trade and finance for now, Europe is working to build its own secure digital financial infrastructure. The key question is whether these different systems will be able to work together in the future, or if we’ll end up with separate, isolated financial systems based on different countries’ rules.

Policymakers need to consider how stablecoins function – are they simply another type of cryptocurrency, or are they evolving into a core part of how payments and banking work? Determining this will help define when stablecoins transition from being investments to actually functioning as part of the broader financial system.

As a researcher, I believe a significant change will occur when stablecoins move beyond speculation and become widely adopted by institutions for things like settling transactions, managing company funds, and international money transfers. Once that happens, they’ll become much more integrated with existing payment systems and the broader financial world. That’s why things like secure storage, keeping assets separate, guaranteed settlements, and strong regulation are so critical. Institutional investors need to be confident that stablecoin systems offer the same level of protection and reliability they’re accustomed to with traditional finance.

Europe has clearly stated its desire to control its own financial system when it comes to digital assets. The current discussion around stablecoins raises a bigger question: can Europe create its own payment systems that don’t rely on the U.S. dollar?

That’s a key part of the conversation. Europe is seriously considering how to stay in control of its financial systems as digital currencies and stablecoins become more popular worldwide. Currently, most financial activity centers around stablecoins backed by the US dollar. This raises the question of whether Europe can create its own digital assets and payment systems using the euro that are competitive, have enough liquidity, and can be used by large institutions.

Building a thriving euro stablecoin system isn’t just about having the right rules. It also demands readily available funds, reliable custodians, efficient settlement systems, connections to traditional banks, and involvement from major financial institutions throughout Europe. This is where MiCA comes in – it provides a clearer set of guidelines that encourage companies to develop these necessary networks and infrastructure within Europe, rather than depending on systems based outside the region.

In the next five years, will stablecoins become integrated into the current financial system, or will they push banks and payment networks to drastically change their methods?

The future will likely involve a blend of traditional and new financial systems. Banks are starting to incorporate digital asset technology into their current operations, particularly for safekeeping, processing transactions, and making payments. However, stablecoins are creating a demand for faster transactions, around-the-clock access to funds, and more flexible systems – things traditional banking wasn’t built to handle. Eventually, the banking and payment systems will need to adapt to meet these changing expectations.

2026-06-05 16:11

Read More