stablecoins

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has strongly criticized the U.S. Senate Banking Committee’s proposed crypto market structure bill. According to him, the bill would harm the crypto industry more than if there were no regulation at all. Armstrong shared his position on platform X (formerly Twitter), warning of serious consequences the legislation could have for decentralized finance, user privacy, and market competition.

Coinbase: This Bill Threatens the Future of Crypto
Armstrong pointed out that the Senate’s proposal would:

🔹 Ban tokenized stocks

🔹 Restrict the DeFi sector

🔹 Give the government access to users’ financial data

🔹 Undermine the CFTC’s role while empowering the SEC

🔹 Penalize stablecoins and block fair competition with traditional banks
He warned that the bill, in its current form, would damage innovation and strengthen the monopoly of large financial institutions. Nevertheless, Coinbase plans to continue working on improving the bill through dialogue with lawmakers.
“We appreciate the lawmakers’ bipartisan efforts, but this version is significantly worse than the status quo. We would prefer no bill over a bad one,” Armstrong stated.

Crypto Market Grows, While Regulation Lags Behind
Ironically, this debate comes at a time when the crypto market is surging again. The total market capitalization grew 3% in the past 24 hours, with Bitcoin heading toward $98,000 and Ethereum nearing $3,500.
Industry experts agree that clear legislation is needed to define when a digital asset is a security and when it is a commodity. While the proposed bill does grant more power to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), it also contains sections that could hinder the growth of stablecoins—therefore blocking the development of decentralized financial services.

137 Amendments Filed, Banks Accused of Influence
The bill has triggered a wave of public responses. So far, over 137 amendments have been submitted, with final wording expected after further negotiations. Meanwhile, crypto industry groups accuse banks of wielding excessive influence over the bill’s content.
Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, stated that banks are pushing to shape the law in their favor, preventing new players from entering the market. Proposed limitations on stablecoin rewards would, she said, hurt consumers and block innovation before it can compete.

#coinbase , #CryptoNews , #brianarmstrong , #Stablecoins , #defi

Stay one step ahead – follow our profile and stay informed about everything important in the world of cryptocurrencies!
Notice:
,,The information and views presented in this article are intended solely for educational purposes and should not be taken as investment advice in any situation. The content of these pages should not be regarded as financial, investment, or any other form of advice. We caution that investing in cryptocurrencies can be risky and may lead to financial losses.“

Bank of Italy–Style Models: Ethereum Collapse and Infrastructure Risk
Abstract
As blockchain networks become systemically important, central banks and financial institutions are increasingly studying the infrastructure risks embedded in public blockchains. Using modeling approaches similar to those employed by institutions like the Bank of Italy, this article explores a hypothetical scenario: What happens if Ethereum suffers a large-scale collapse? We analyze Ethereum as a financial infrastructure, identify fragility points, and explain how network stress can propagate across decentralized finance (DeFi), stablecoins, and global crypto markets.

1. Ethereum as Financial Infrastructure, Not Just a Token
Ethereum is no longer just a cryptocurrency. It functions as:
A settlement layer for DeFiA collateral backbone for stablecoinsA smart-contract execution engineA liquidity hub for NFTs, bridges, and Layer-2s
From a central-bank modeling perspective, Ethereum resembles a financial market infrastructure (FMI)—similar to payment systems or clearing houses.
➡️ This means Ethereum failure risk is systemic, not isolated.

2. How Central Banks Model Infrastructure Risk
Institutions like the Bank of Italy typically use:
Network theory modelsStress-testing frameworksAgent-based simulationsLiquidity contagion models
Applied to Ethereum, these models focus on:
Node concentrationValidator incentivesLiquidity dependenciesSmart-contract interconnections
The goal is to answer one question:
Can a shock in one part of the system cascade into total failure?

3. Key Fragility Points in Ethereum’s Architecture
3.1 Validator Concentration Risk
Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake relies on validators, but:
Large staking providers control a significant shareRegulatory pressure on validators can cause coordinated exitsSlashing events can amplify panic
📉 Model Outcome: Reduced validator participation → slower finality → loss of trust.

3.2 DeFi Liquidity Feedback Loops
Ethereum hosts massive leveraged positions through:
Lending protocolsLiquid staking tokens (LSTs)Synthetic assets
In stress models:
ETH price dropsCollateral ratios failLiquidations spikeGas fees surgeNetwork congestion worsens
This creates a negative reflexivity loop.

3.3 Stablecoin Dependency Risk
Most major stablecoins depend on Ethereum rails.
If Ethereum stalls:
Stablecoin redemptions slowArbitrage breaksPeg instability increases
📊 Central-bank-style simulations show that stablecoin stress accelerates systemic collapse faster than price volatility alone.

4. Hypothetical Ethereum Collapse Scenario (Modeled)
Phase 1: Shock Event
Regulatory action, major exploit, or validator outageETH price drops sharply
Phase 2: Liquidity Freeze
DeFi protocols halt withdrawalsBridges become bottlenecksGas fees spike uncontrollably
Phase 3: Contagion
L2s fail due to Ethereum dependenceCross-chain liquidity dries upStablecoin confidence erodes
Phase 4: Market Repricing
ETH loses its “risk-free crypto collateral” statusCapital migrates to alternative chains or exits crypto entirely

5. Why This Matters Beyond Crypto
From a Bank-of-Italy-style macro view:
Crypto markets are increasingly interlinked with traditional financeEthereum acts as a shadow settlement layerFailure could impact:Crypto fundsPayment startupsTokenized real-world assets (RWA)
This is why regulators study Ethereum not as innovation—but as infrastructure risk.

6. Risk Is Structural, Not Technical
Important insight from infrastructure modeling:
Ethereum does not fail because of bad code alone —
it fails when economic incentives, liquidity, and trust break simultaneously.
Even perfect technology cannot survive:
Liquidity runsGovernance paralysisConfidence collapse

7. Can Ethereum Reduce Collapse Risk?
Mitigation strategies identified in systemic models include:
Validator decentralizationBetter liquidation throttlesReduced DeFi leverageMulti-chain settlement redundancy
However, no system is collapse-proof—only collapse-resistant.

Conclusion
Using modeling logic similar to that applied by the Bank of Italy, Ethereum emerges as a critical but fragile financial infrastructure. A collapse would not be a simple price crash—it would be a network-wide liquidity and trust failure, with cascading effects across the crypto ecosystem.
For traders, builders, and policymakers, the lesson is clear:
Ethereum risk is no longer speculative risk — it is systemic infrastructure risk.

$ETH

デルフィー経済フォーラムでの演説で、連邦準備制度理事会理事のミラン氏は、ステーブルコインを米国通貨の影響力の将来に関する議論の中心に位置づけた。彼の発言は、中央銀行の内部で、ドルを基盤とするデジタル資産がもはや周辺的なイノベーションではなく、世界の米国金融商品に対する需要を形作る潜在的な構造的要因であるという認識が高まっていることを示している。
ドルの新たな需要を生み出すステーブルコイン
ミラン氏は、ドルまたは短期国債を担保とするステーブルコインが、デジタル経済にドルを実質的に輸出していると主張した。発行される各ステーブルコインには、通常現金または国債で保有される準備金が必要であり、これにより米国の安全資産に対する追加需要が生じる。彼の見解では、このメカニズムは大幅に拡大可能だと考えている。彼は、ステーブルコイン市場は今後10年以内に1兆ドルから3兆ドルにまで拡大すると予測しており、現在の1500億～2000億ドルから大幅に増加すると見ている。

アメリカ上院では、暗号資産の規制を目的とした法案について活発な議論が行われています。最新のデータによると、この文書には75件以上の修正がなされており、問題の複雑さと議員間の多様な見解がうかがえます。このような大規模な変更は、革新と消費者保護のバランスを図ろうとする姿勢を反映しています。

対立から資源へ：なぜFRBがステーブルコイン時代を受け入れているのか
デジタル金融に関する物語は、歴史的な分岐点に達しました。長年にわたり、伝統的な中央銀行と暗号資産世界との関係は、摩擦と懐疑で定義されてきました。しかし、私たちは画期的な転換点を目の当たりにしています：連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）は、適切に規制されたステーブルコインを脅威と見なすのではなく、米ドルにとって戦略的同盟者と見なすようになっています。
新しい戦略的ビジョン
FRBのトーンの変化は、お金のデジタル進化が避けがたいことへの認識を示しています。ドル連動資産の有用性を認めたことで、米国の中央銀行は、実質的にドルをデジタル時代に「オンボーディング」しているのです。