Report on Stablecoins [pdf]

Is this always technically true? Or are they sometimes just (inserting word) *purportedly* designed to do that?

> Legislation should address the risks outlined in this report by establishing an appropriate federal prudential framework for payment stablecoin arrangements.29 In particular, with respect to stablecoin issuers, legislation should provide for supervision on a consolidated basis; prudential standards; and, potentially, access to appropriate components of the federal safety net. To accomplish these objectives, legislation should limit stablecoin issuance, and related activities of redemption and maintenance of reserve assets, to entities that are insured depository institutions.

> The standards to which these [insured depository] institutions are subject include capital and liquidity standards that are designed to address safety and soundness and, for the largest banking organizations, also include enhanced prudential standards that address financial stability concerns. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, insured depository institutions also are subject to a special resolution regime that enables the orderly resolution of failed insured depository institutions by, among other mechanisms, protecting customers’ insured deposits, and according priority to deposit claims over those of general creditors, and limits any potential negative systemic impacts in the event of bank failure.

I suspect that we're going to very quickly (by legislative standards) find out which stablecoins are backed by real currency and which are "backed by real currency." I'm betting short-term there'll be some issues with liquidity, especially on smaller exchanges. But longer-term, having the gaps filled in by stabler stablecoins can't hurt.