Stablecoins may quickly replicate the history of the banking industry.
Author: Sam Broner
Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow
Millions of people have traded trillions of dollars through stablecoins, yet the definition and understanding of this category remain vague.
Stablecoins serve as a medium of value storage and exchange, typically pegged to the US dollar, but not necessarily so. They can be categorized along two dimensions: from under-collateralized to over-collateralized, and from centralized to decentralized. This classification helps to understand the relationship between the technology structure and risks and dispel misconceptions about stablecoins. I will propose another useful way of thinking based on this framework.
To understand the richness and limitations of stablecoin design, we can draw from the history of banking: which methods were effective, which were not, and why. Like many products in cryptocurrency, stablecoins may quickly replicate the history of banking, starting from simple banknotes and gradually expanding the money supply through complex lending mechanisms.
First, I will discuss the recent history of stablecoins, then take you back to the history of banking to make a beneficial comparison between stablecoins and banking structures. Stablecoins provide users with experiences similar to bank deposits and banknotes—convenient and reliable value storage, a medium of exchange, and loans—but in a non-custodial "self-custody" form. In this process, I will evaluate three types of tokens: fiat-backed stablecoins, asset-backed stablecoins, and strategy-backed synthetic dollars.
Let’s dive deeper.
Some Recent History of Stablecoins
Since the launch of USDC in 2018, this most widely adopted US stablecoin has provided us with ample evidence to showcase which designs are successful and which are not. Therefore, it is now time to clearly define this field. Early users utilized fiat-backed stablecoins for transfers and savings. Although decentralized over-collateralized lending protocols produced useful and reliable stablecoins, their demand has remained relatively flat. So far, consumers seem to prefer dollar-denominated stablecoins over other (fiat or novel) denominated options.
Certain categories of stablecoins have completely failed. Decentralized under-collateralized stablecoins, while more capital-efficient than fiat-backed or over-collateralized stablecoins, have ended in disaster in the most well-known cases. Other categories have yet to take shape: yield-bearing stablecoins are intuitively appealing—after all, who doesn’t like yield?—but they face user experience and regulatory hurdles.
Other types of dollar-denominated tokens have also emerged, aided by the successful product-market fit of stablecoins. Strategy-backed synthetic dollars (which will be described in more detail below) represent a new product category that, while similar to stablecoins, has not yet met the important standards of safety and maturity, with their higher-risk yields accepted by DeFi enthusiasts as investments.
We have also witnessed the rapid proliferation of fiat-backed stablecoins, which are favored for their simplicity and perceived safety; while the adoption of asset-backed stablecoins has lagged, despite traditionally holding the largest share in deposit investments. Analyzing stablecoins through the lens of traditional banking structures helps explain these trends.
Bank Deposits and US Currency: A Bit of History
To understand how contemporary stablecoins mimic banking structures, it is very helpful to know the history of the US banking industry. Before the Federal Reserve Act (1913), especially prior to the National Banking Act (1863-1864), different types of dollars were not treated equally. (For those interested in learning more, the US experienced three eras of central banking before establishing a national currency: the era of central banks [First Bank 1791-1811 and Second Bank 1816-1836], the free banking era [1837-1863], and the national banking era [1863-1913]. We have tried almost every method.)
Before the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 1933, deposits had to be specifically underwritten against bank risks. The "real" value of banknotes (cash), deposits, and checks could vary based on the issuer, the convenience of redemption, and the reliability of the issuer.
Why was this the case? Because banks face a conflict between profitability and ensuring the safety of deposits.
To be profitable, banks need to invest deposits and take risks, but to ensure the safety of deposits, they must manage risks and maintain sufficient cash reserves. Before the late 19th century, different forms of currency were believed to have different risk levels, and thus their actual values varied. After the implementation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, the dollar gradually came to be viewed as equivalent (in most cases).
Today, banks use dollar deposits to purchase government bonds and stocks, issue loans, and engage in simple strategies such as market making or hedging, all of which are permitted by the Volcker Rule. This rule was introduced in 2008 to reduce the risk of bankruptcy by limiting speculative activities of retail banks. Loans are particularly important in banking operations and are how banks increase the money supply and enhance capital efficiency in the economy.
While ordinary bank customers may think all their funds are held in deposit accounts, this is not the case. However, due to federal regulation, consumer protection, widespread adoption, and improved risk management, consumers can view deposits as a relatively risk-free overall balance. Banks balance profitability and risk behind the scenes, and users are mostly unaware of what banks do with their deposits, yet even during economic turmoil, they remain confident in the safety of deposits.
Stablecoins provide users with many familiar experiences similar to bank deposits and banknotes—convenient and reliable value storage, a medium of exchange, and loans—but in a non-custodial "self-custody" form. Stablecoins will emulate their fiat predecessors. Their application will start with simple banknotes, but as decentralized lending protocols mature, asset-backed stablecoins will become increasingly popular.
Viewing Stablecoins from the Perspective of Bank Deposits
In this context, we can evaluate three types of stablecoins from the perspective of retail banking: fiat-backed stablecoins, asset-backed stablecoins, and strategy-backed synthetic dollars.
Fiat-Backed Stablecoins
Fiat-backed stablecoins are similar to banknotes from the National Banking Era (1865-1913) in the US. During this period, banknotes were bearer instruments issued by banks; federal regulations required customers to be able to redeem these notes for an equivalent amount of greenbacks (such as specific US government bonds) or other legal tender (“specie”). Therefore, although the value of banknotes could vary based on the issuer's reputation, distance, and perceived ability to pay, most people trusted banknotes.
Fiat-backed stablecoins operate on the same principle. They are tokens that users can directly redeem for a widely known and trusted legal currency, but with similar limitations: while banknotes are bearer instruments that anyone can redeem, holders may not live near the issuing bank. Over time, people gradually accepted that they could find someone willing to exchange banknotes for greenbacks or coins. Similarly, users of fiat-backed stablecoins are increasingly confident that they can reliably find someone willing to exchange high-quality fiat-backed stablecoins for a dollar value through Uniswap, Coinbase, or other exchanges.
Driven by regulatory pressure and user preferences, more and more users are turning to fiat-backed stablecoins, which account for over 94% of the total stablecoin supply. Circle and Tether dominate the issuance of fiat-backed stablecoins, jointly issuing over $150 billion in dollar-denominated fiat-backed stablecoins.
So why do users trust the issuers of fiat-backed stablecoins? After all, fiat-backed stablecoins are centrally issued, making it easy to imagine a potential stablecoin redemption "run." To address these risks, fiat-backed stablecoins increase trust by undergoing audits from well-known accounting firms. For example, Circle regularly undergoes audits by Deloitte. The purpose of these audits is to ensure that stablecoin issuers have sufficient fiat or short-term government bond reserves to meet any recent redemptions and that issuers have enough fiat collateral to support each stablecoin on a 1:1 basis.
Verifiable reserve proof and decentralized issuance of fiat stablecoins are both possible but have not yet been realized. Verifiable reserve proof would enhance the transparency of audits and can currently be achieved through methods like zkTLS (zero-knowledge transport layer security, also known as web proofs), although it still relies on trusted centralized authorities. The decentralized issuance of fiat-backed stablecoins may be feasible, but faces significant regulatory challenges. For example, to achieve decentralized issuance of fiat-backed stablecoins, issuers would need to hold US government bonds on-chain that have similar risk characteristics to traditional government bonds. This is currently unfeasible, but if achieved, it would further enhance user trust in fiat-backed stablecoins.
Asset-Backed Stablecoins
Asset-backed stablecoins originate from on-chain lending. They mimic the mechanism by which banks create new money through lending. New stablecoins issued by decentralized over-collateralized lending protocols like Sky Protocol (formerly MakerDAO) are backed by highly liquid collateral on-chain.
To understand how they work, consider a checking account. The funds in a checking account are part of a complex system of loans, regulation, and risk management that creates new money. In fact, most of the money in circulation, known as the M2 money supply, is created through bank loans. While banks create money through mortgages, auto loans, business loans, and inventory financing, lending protocols use on-chain tokens as collateral for loans, thereby creating asset-backed stablecoins.
This system of creating new money through loans is known as the fractional reserve banking system, which officially began with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Since then, the fractional reserve banking system has undergone significant maturation, with major updates in 1933 (with the establishment of the FDIC), 1971 (when President Nixon ended the gold standard), and 2020 (when reserve requirement ratios were lowered to zero).
Each change has increased consumer and regulator trust in the system of creating new money through loans. Over the past 110 years, loans have created an increasingly large proportion of the US money supply, now accounting for the majority.
There are reasons consumers do not consider these loans when using dollars. First, funds deposited in banks are protected by federal deposit insurance. Second, despite experiencing major crises like those in 1929 and 2008, banks and regulators continuously improve their practices and processes to reduce risks.
Traditional financial institutions employ three methods to safely issue loans:
Targeting assets with liquid markets and rapid settlement practices (margin loans)
Using large-scale statistical analysis on a bundle of loans (mortgages)
Through thoughtful and customized underwriting (commercial loans)
Decentralized lending protocols still occupy a small share of the stablecoin supply, as they are in the early stages of development. The most representative decentralized over-collateralized lending protocols are transparent, well-tested, and conservatively styled. For example, Sky is the most well-known collateral lending protocol, and the asset-backed stablecoins it issues are based on on-chain, external, low-volatility, and highly liquid (easily sellable) assets. Sky also has strict regulations regarding collateral ratios, effective governance, and auction protocols. These features ensure that even when conditions change, collateral can be safely sold, thus protecting the redemption value of asset-backed stablecoins.
Users can evaluate collateral lending protocols based on four criteria:
Transparency of governance
Ratio, quality, and volatility of the assets backing the stablecoins
Security of smart contracts
Ability to maintain loan collateral ratios in real-time
Like the example of funds in a checking account, asset-backed stablecoins are new money created through asset-backed loans, but their lending practices are more transparent, auditable, and easier to understand. Users can audit the collateral supporting asset-backed stablecoins, but they can only rely on trust for the investment decisions of bank executives.
Moreover, the decentralization and transparency of blockchain can mitigate the risks that securities laws aim to address. This is crucial for stablecoins, as it means that truly decentralized asset-backed stablecoins may not be subject to securities laws. This analysis may only apply to asset-backed stablecoins that rely on digitally native collateral (rather than "real-world assets"), as such collateral can be protected through autonomous protocols without relying on centralized intermediaries.
As more economic activity shifts on-chain, we can foresee two things: first, more assets will become candidates for collateral in lending protocols; second, asset-backed stablecoins will occupy a larger share of on-chain currency. Other types of loans may eventually also be safely issued on-chain, further expanding the on-chain money supply. Nevertheless, while users can evaluate asset-backed stablecoins, this does not mean that every user will be willing to take on this responsibility.
Just as the growth of traditional bank loans, the lowering of reserve requirements by regulators, and the maturation of lending practices all take time, the maturation of on-chain lending protocols will also require time. Therefore, it will take some time for asset-backed stablecoins to be as easy to use as fiat-backed stablecoins.
Strategy-Backed Synthetic Dollars
Recently, some projects have begun offering tokens with a face value of $1 that combine collateral and investment strategies. While these tokens are often classified as stablecoins, strategy-backed synthetic dollars should not be viewed as stablecoins for the following reasons.
Strategy-backed synthetic dollars (SBSDs) allow users direct exposure to actively managed trading risks. They are typically centralized, under-collateralized tokens combined with financial derivatives. More specifically, SBSDs are dollar shares in open-ended hedge funds, a structure that is not only difficult to audit but may also expose users to risks from centralized exchanges (CEX) and asset price volatility, especially during significant market fluctuations or prolonged negative sentiment.
These characteristics make SBSDs unsuitable for the primary use of stablecoins—reliable value storage or a medium of exchange. Although SBSDs can be constructed in various ways, with differing risks and stability, they all provide a dollar-denominated financial product that may be included in investment portfolios.
SBSDs can be built on various strategies, such as basis trading or participating in yield protocols, like helping to secure active validation services (AVSs) through re-staking protocols. These projects typically allow users to earn yields on cash positions by managing risks and returns. By managing yield risks, including assessing the penalty risks of AVSs, seeking higher yield opportunities, or monitoring reversals in basis trading, projects can generate yield-bearing SBSDs.
Before using any SBSD, users should thoroughly understand its risks and mechanisms, just as they would with any new tool. DeFi users should also consider the implications of using SBSDs in DeFi strategies, as decoupling could lead to severe ripple effects. When an asset decouples or suddenly depreciates relative to its tracked asset, derivatives relying on price stability and continuous yield may suddenly become unstable. However, when strategies include centralized, closed-source, or unauditable components, it may be difficult or even impossible to assess and underwrite their risks. To underwrite risk, you must understand what you are underwriting.
While banks do run simple strategies through deposits, these strategies are actively managed and constitute a small portion of overall capital allocation. These strategies are difficult to support stablecoins because they require active management, making it challenging to achieve reliable decentralization or auditing. SBSDs expose users to risks that are more concentrated than those allowed in bank deposits. If users' deposits are held in this manner, they have reason to feel skeptical.
In fact, users have been cautious about SBSDs. Although SBSDs are popular among risk-preferring users, the actual number of people trading them is not large. Additionally, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken enforcement action against issuers of "stablecoins" that effectively resemble shares in investment funds.
Stablecoins have become widespread. The total amount of stablecoins used in global trading has exceeded $160 billion. They are primarily divided into two main categories: fiat-backed stablecoins and asset-backed stablecoins. Other dollar-denominated tokens, such as strategy-backed synthetic dollars, while gaining recognition, do not meet the definition of stablecoins used for trading or storing value.
The history of banking is a good reference for understanding this category—stablecoins must first be integrated around a clear, easily understood, and easily redeemable banknote, just as Federal Reserve banknotes gained recognition in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Over time, we can expect the number of asset-backed stablecoins issued by decentralized over-collateralized lending institutions to increase, just as banks increase the M2 money supply through deposit loans. Ultimately, we can expect DeFi to continue to grow, not only by creating more SBSDs for investors but also by improving the quality and quantity of asset-backed stablecoins.
However, this analysis—while potentially useful—can only take us so far. Stablecoins have become the cheapest way to send dollars, which means that in the payments industry, stablecoins have the opportunity to reshape market structures, providing existing companies, especially startups, with opportunities to build on a frictionless and costless new payment platform.
Acknowledgments: Special thanks to Eddy Lazzarin, Tim Sullivan, Aiden Slavin, Robert Hackett, Michael Blau, Miles Jennings, and Scott Kominers, whose thoughtful feedback and suggestions made this article possible.
Sam Broner is a partner on the a16z crypto investment team. Before joining a16z, Sam was a software engineer at Microsoft, where he was one of the founding team members of Fluid Framework and Microsoft Loop. Sam also attended the MIT Sloan School of Management, where he participated in the Boston Federal Reserve Bank's Project Hamilton, led the Sloan Blockchain Club, mentored the first Sloan AI Summit, and received the MIT Patrick J. McGovern Award for creating an entrepreneurial community. You can follow him on the X platform @SamBroner.
The views expressed here are the personal opinions of the individuals cited and do not represent the views of a16z or its affiliates. Some of the information contained here comes from third-party sources, including portfolio companies of funds managed by a16z. While this information comes from sources believed to be reliable, a16z has not independently verified it and makes no guarantees regarding its current or long-term accuracy or its suitability for specific situations. Additionally, this content may contain third-party advertisements; a16z has not reviewed these advertisements and does not endorse any of the advertising contained herein.
This content is for reference only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisors to address these matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an offer to provide investment advice or services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at any investors or potential investors and should not be used under any circumstances as a basis for deciding to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An invitation to invest in a16z funds is made only through the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other related documents of any such fund, which should be read in their entirety.) Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referenced, or described do not represent all investment projects managed by a16z, and there is no guarantee that these investments will be profitable, or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by Andreessen Horowitz (excluding investments that the issuer has not permitted a16z to publicly disclose and undisclosed publicly traded digital asset investments) can be found at https://a16z.com/investment-list/.
The content is only valid as of the date indicated. Any forecasts, estimates, projections, targets, outlooks, and/or opinions expressed in the material are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures/ for more important information.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
