Talk:Stablecoin

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change

For Euro pegged stablecoins, major examples would include Circle's EURC, EUR Tether and Stasis EUR.^[1][2]

to

For Euro pegged stablecoins, major examples would include Circle's EURC, the Monerium EURe, EUR Tether and Stasis EUR.^[3][4][5] Satoshi Nakamoto III (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the suggestion. However, the source provided is not a major source. I have also checked that Monerium EURe has low trading volume and low market cap, so it would not be included. Arutoria (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The Monerium EURe is the first compliant onchain euro and powers onchain payment applications like the Gnosis VISA and MetaMask MasterCard debit cards and would therefore be included. The source provided has been updated. Satoshi Nakamoto III (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added the token to the example Arutoria (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

As of August 2025, nearly 99% of fiat-backed stablecoins are pegged to the US dollars.^[1] Major examples of US dollar pegged stablecoins are Tether's USDT, Circle's USDC, and Binance's BUSD.^[2][3] For Euro pegged stablecoins, major examples would include Circle's EURC, EUR Tether, Monerium's EURemoney, and Stasis EUR.^[4][5][6]

to

As of August 2025, nearly 99% of fiat-backed stablecoins are pegged to the US dollars.^[1] Major examples of US dollar pegged stablecoins are Tether's USDT, Circle's USDC, and Binance's BUSD.^[2][7] For Euro pegged stablecoins, major examples would include Circle's EURC, EURt Tether, Monerium EURe, and Stasis EURS.^[8][9][10]

for accuracy of euro stablecoins names. Satoshi Nakamoto III (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. The TechCrunch source is not good enough to mention Monerium as a 'major' example. Please propose a reliable source which directly supports this claim. After that, we can use that source to decide on the precise wording. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

"For Euro pegged stablecoins, major examples include Circle's EURC,[12] EUR Tether, and Stasis EUR."

to

"For euro pegged stablecoins, major examples include the Circle EURC, Tether EURt, and Stasis EURS, and Monerium EURe."

Reasons for changes:

1) The euro is not capitalized. 2) Drop the possessive of the first enumarated issuer for readability. 3) Correct the names of the Tether and Stasis euro stablecoins 4) Add the Monerium EURe, the first compliant euro stablecoin and the first euro stablecoin connected directly to SEPA as described in the referenced article of a leading crypto publication, Decrypt. Satoshi Nakamoto III (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This request has been rejected 2 times for sourcing issues, please reopen when a reliable source can be given. x2step (lets talk 💌) 00:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Hong Kong", suggest to make the following changes: 1. Change "The bill was passed in May 2025 with the first stablecoin issuance licenses expected in early 2026." to "The bill was passed in May 2025 with the licensing regime for stablecoin issuers launched on 1 August 2025." (reference: https://www.jsm.com/publications/2025/hong-kong-licensing-regime-for-stablecoin-issuers-goes-live-on-1-august-2025/) Reditswk (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The stablecoin bill establishing the licensing regime took effect on August 1, but the first batch of licenses is not expected to be granted until early 2026, per the cited Reuters source. Day Creature (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "The bill was passed in May 2025 with the first stablecoin issuance licenses expected in early 2026." to "The bill was passed in May 2025 with licensing regime for stablecoin issuers went live on 1 August 2025." (reference link: https://www.jsm.com/publications/2025/hong-kong-licensing-regime-for-stablecoin-issuers-goes-live-on-1-august-2025/) Reditswk (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Duplicate edit request. Day Creature (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add additional reference (https://www.jsm.com/publications/2025/what-hong-kong-stablecoin-issuers-need-to-know-about-the-latest-aml-cft-compliance/) for this line: "In particular, guidelines require stablecoin issuers to have strict rules on anti-money laundering, risk management, and corporate governance." Reditswk (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This reference does not add anything not covered by the existing citation to the South China Morning Post, and may be an attempt at WP:REFSPAM. Day Creature (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Arutoria I've been reviewing the article and making some edits where the text seems broader than what the sources directly support. In a few places the wording may risk issues such as WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:UNDUE. Since some of the sections I edited seem to overlap with material you added, I wanted your input.

For example, the humanitarian aid section relies on reporting on the ImpactMarket crypto project. In that context, it feels like its being used for broader claims about aid than what the source directly states.

More generally, other sections seem to rely on pilot programs, proposals, or limited case studies. These appear to more forward-looking instead of writing from the perspective of a editor reading the article 10 years in the future WP:10YT. I’m not sure all of these are significant enough to include unless there are stronger independent sources showing broader usage.

Any thoughts? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Sibshops, thank you for reviewing the article!

Regarding the humanitarian aid part, there are more sources I can add. I didn't add wrote too much about that part because I was more focused on collecting information about regulations around the world (something that should have been done by financial institutions but somehow the information is not easily available and I have to look through legislation.)

Digitisation and Sovereignty in Humanitarian Space: Technologies, Territories and Tensions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14650045.2022.2047468#d1e569

While I understand these programmes are still being implemented at a small scale, I think it is important to point out their use in developing countries. Due to the limited internet infrastructure and information from these areas, we are bound to receive less information about the Global South.

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-stablecoins-could-further-weaken-africas-public-finances

I have been seeing more coverage about how stablecoins are increasingly being adopted in Africa. In terms of volume, the scale cannot compare to the speculation we are seeing in the US, but the number of people affected could be much higher.

I can write more about the use in developing countries and humanitarian aid. Is it only that part (Stablecoin#Aid distribution) that require rewriting? Thank you. Arutoria (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

cgdev appears to be a blog post. The tf online is a journal and needs to be evaluated from a WP:SCHOLARSHIP perspective, and I am not sure if it is WP:PRIMARY here. The piece has a lot of citations, but at least the first part of it, its more citations for the purpose of creating a thesis and doesnt appear to be WP:SECONDARY. For cryptocurrency in general we are only using high quality sources, mainstream sources. That means no coindesk and it also means no primary blog posts by NGOs and no primary quasi research pieces. To put it simply on these crypto articles we need to see stuff covered by the likes of bloomberg, wsj, nyt, high quality authorship of books, etc. Trying to put together some sort of piece about how stablecoins might help the world in the future is problematic from POV, SYNTH, CRYSTAL, etc. Also predictions of how stablecoins will destroy the world are just as problematic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The current article is quoting from reliable sources. That is why I am asking the OP for clarification regarding which part they think is problematic. I am aware that coindesk is not a reliable source and they are not quoted in the article. Arutoria (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I can make the changes myself, but if you feel any of them aren't warranted, please feel free to revert. I'm mainly interested in getting your feedback on the general direction of the edits and whether the concerns I raised seem reasonable. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I am mostly fine with the changes. Sometimes I avoided mentioning specific stablecoins (such as USDC in the case of Ukrainian aid) because I don't want to be seen as promoting specific cryptocurrencies. But if you think that is necessary, it is fine by me.

Regarding the "criminal use" part, the reason I picked "pig butchering" as a subtopic is because they are very very important for people especially in Asia. Nearly everyone here had received some form of scam calls.

And I want to avoid grouping these scams with uses such as in the case of Russian stablecoins. While the state is being sanctioned by American and some European countries, the average, common citizen in Russia using stablecoin to conduct business can hardly be called "crime". Remember that they could be trading with Armenian, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. who did not participate in the sanction.

I made a section named Ukrainian war because I know that stablecoin use in the country is increasingly common. Their government even received donations in USDT during crowd funding.

https://www.elliptic.co/blog/live-updates-millions-in-crypto-crowdfunded-for-the-ukrainian-military

Unfortunately the above link might not be considered a reliable source and therefore I cannot add that information into the article. If this is reported by a more reputable avenue, this would make that part more complete. Arutoria (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

And I want to avoid grouping these scams with uses such as in the case of Russian stablecoins.

Do you have any suggestions on how you would prefer to organize it?

One of the sources discusses the ruble-based stablecoin in the context of sanctions evasion, so I thought placing it under the crime section would be reasonable. If that grouping doesn't seem right, the section could maybe be renamed something like "Illicit uses" instead?

For example, the source states:

Through his ruble-based stablecoin A7A5, money is funneled via black-market exchanges in Turkey, the UAE, and Lebanon before being recycled into Moldovan politics to evade sanctions.

https://www.stimson.org/2025/moldovas-2025-elections-a-test-case-for-russias-hybrid-warfare/ ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

'Criminal use' seems fine to me. The sources for the paragraph on Russian sanction evasion are pretty clearly about criminal uses. Any hypothetical Armenian, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. who participate in this scheme don't get to pick-and-choose whether or not they also participate in sanctions -that's kind of the whole point of sanctions. Per cited sources, this stablecoin exists to evade sanctions. It's not even subtle. If reliable sources discuss non-criminal uses, let's see them, but considering the context and raw quantity of sources about criminal uses, any source which completely ignores this aspect is inherently fishy. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Grayfell, I understand you have your own issue with the article. Can we discuss first before making drastic changes? For e.g. in the Venezuelan case, I have seen more sources describing the issue. But because no one was having an issue back then, I didn't add too many sources to avoid making things too complicated.

The image of Venezuela is to illustrate the hyperinflation and therefore make comparison to USD-denominated stablecoin in the paragraph. It is a perfect image to illustrate the situation which led to adoption of stablecoin.

New Vision is the most visited source of news in Uganda and not just some unknown outlet.

If you have issue with the source/content/image, please flag them before making drastic changes. I am not good at html stuff so finding text from old version is difficult for me. Thank you. Arutoria (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You understand? Are you sure? Because your comments do not reflect that understanding. This is a collaborative project, and I am not obligated to 'flag' problems for your convenience. As for being 'drastic', I think drastic changes will likely needed here, eventually, but those edits I made were not drastic.

The image was not "perfect", since it had no direct connection to the topic of the article, and should not be used for decoration or to tell a political story. This is per MOS:IMG.

I did not remove the New Vision source. You will need to proportionately summarize what sources say without WP:SYNTH. Stick to reliable sources. Do not go hunting for weaker sources to inflate the article with small-scale examples. Start with substantial sources and only use weaker sources to provide context or fill-in non-controversial details. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Hyperinflation" may not be the most accurate description for this type of usage, in the first place. The El País article describes usage as a "hedge against volatility" rather than framing it strictly in a hyperinflation context. So I renamed the section to 'Currency Substitution'

I also reviewed the two sources cited for hyperinflation-related usage in Argentina and Turkey. One appears to be a student-run publication, the other seems to be describing a possible use case rather than documenting usage. I tried to find a substitute reliable source, but didn't have any luck. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah...the good old antagonistic @Grayfell is back.

Quoting, "You understand? Are you sure? Because your comments do not reflect that understanding."

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Despite attempt to have good faith conversation, you think you are always correct and have no attempt to have a discussion first. Remember before I started becoming the main editor of this article months ago? I asked for everyone's opinion on the direction first, and then only made edits AFTER I see no objection. Its possible to find that archive.

You mentioned this is a collective work, which is why it is even more important to have discussion first. Do you realise the reason editing Wikipedia become so unwelcoming to newcomers is exactly because of attitude like this?

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite

I am glad you don't work in education. (If you do, my condolences to your students.) Because learning is going to be a nightmare under your direction.

In a rush to prove you are right, you even re-reverted before one day in a locked article and only realised the mistake in later edits. This is exactly the reason I asked for discussion first, because of possible situation like this.

And you didn't even mentioned "good faith edit" in your revert despite me stating clearly the reason for the edit. Is that how Wikipedia has become now? Everything is about war and not working together?

Unfortunately I have a full time job and its Monday here so I do not have the time to respond to your point one by one yet.

For this reason I trust @Sibshops to continue their editing. At least they have the gratitude to discuss first and not make rash edits. Thank you for collaboratng Sibshops! Arutoria (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

You are not a newcomer. You've had an account for over a decade, with over a thousand edits. Therefor, I assume that you already know about WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, and all the rest. To be blunt, you do not need to know HTML (which is not used in editing most Wikis anyway) to browse the article's history.

I don't know which edits you disapprove of, nor why, nor would that invalidate them. Are my edits 'drastic'? That doesn't tell me anything.

It's not appropriate for you to speculate, but I have worked in education. Invoking my students to insult me ain't really in the spirit of WP:AGF, is it?. It doesn't matter, either. This talk page is not a school and (I assume) you are not one of my students. This is an encyclopedia article.

Likewise, this isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, and that's part of the problem with the current article. (I'm sure you've already seen WP:RGW). If you want to talk about specific changes, do so. If you want to start a new talk section to do so, go ahead.

I must admit, I am pretty cranky about the images, and if I'd noticed it sooner, I would've removed them sooner. Showing a random group of refugees minding their own business was a mistake. It just looked exploitive. The current wording on the bolivar image is grammatically incorrect, editorializing/unsourced, and also misrepresents the context of the image. This was an image taken by the VoA of a political protest in 2019. None of that context has been provided, and at no point does the originating source mention crypto of any kind. To my eyes, this isn't appropriate. It's a visually impactful politically loaded image taken during one event in a very complicated long-term crises, shown without context. It appears it's been added to make a vague, controversial claim about a political issue. This kind of thing is why I mention WP:NOTPR and similar. If I'm wrong about why this image was added, cite and summarize a reliable source that connects this event to stablecoins. Without a source and context from that source, this doesn't belong regardless of why it was added. Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the image doesn't represent stablecoin usage, and the cited source (VoA) doesn't connect the image to stablecoin usage, either. Using this image this way seems to imply a connection between this image and stablecoins not supported by the image source. I'll remove it to avoid potential WP:OR issues. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Its fine. I am not insisting on that particular image. I just find someone disrespectful.

For me the intention to work together is much more important. Good day. Arutoria (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking that we can open a sub category known as "sanction avoidance".

It would more accurately describe the action, and I am also collecting information about North Korea using stablecoin to avoid sanction as well, which can then be added to the section. Arutoria (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Sanction avoidance" is a form of criminal use, and the section is already crowded with too many non-neutral one-paragraph sections. This separate subsection misleadingly implies that these are separate things. That isn't even supported by the current sources. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or promotion, so this problem should be fixed. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops as promised, I have added the North Korea sanction avoidance case. I don't have the time to read the full report yet but the news already gave a pretty good picture. Thanks for the patience. Arutoria (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this revert:

Rhetorically speaking, how exactly are money laundering and terrorism financing 'risks', but not 'uses'?

Per these sources, the risk comes from how stablecoins are used. These are not separate issues. Only some of those sources for that section focus on 'risk', but all of them do so because stabelcoins can be used for these purposes.

Further, "risk" implies something bad might happen, but that point is past. In a financial context, risk also means that an investment might fail. Again, that doesn't cleanly apply here. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hm.. The section titles could probably be made narrower.

I can see some things can fit into both categories.

For example, currency substitution is a use for people adopting stablecoins, but it is often framed as regulatory risk for governments. The same applies to money laundering or terrorism financing, there are people using the technology and that use poses risks to other entities. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have an idea for a clearer conceptual split.

We could split the two sections into three:

• Uses - intentional activities by people using stablecoins (trading, cross-border payments, currency substitution, criminal use, etc.)
• Financial risks / stability concerns - unintended financial outcomes for users (de-pegging, contagion risk, counterparty risk, reserve transparency)
• Regulatory and policy issues - concerns raised by governments or regulators or entities not using stablecoins (money laundering / terrorism financing, monetary sovereignty, etc.)

This would avoid the "use vs risk" ambiguity that comes up in a few places. There will be some slightly overlapping sections like "currency substitution" and "monetary sovereignty" but the sections won't overlap since the topic will be viewed from different perspectives. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make the changes. Feel free to revert if there are any issues. Any feedback is welcome. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Consider the following scenario:

We know that drug gangs extensively use "couriers" to distribute cash and conduct money laundering.

Chinese brokers launder hundreds of millions for global crime groups | FT Film < Recommended watch btw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjGIp7kdS6E

In this case, would we say that the "use" of money is for money laundering? We usually don't. The reason being that money has a few properties that make it unique, such as being medium of exchange and store of value. And therefore illegal activities are likely to involve money, but they are not "the main use case", but instead usually described as risk, a.k.a. ML/TF.

What makes stablecoin different from other cryptocurrencies, is that some of them are supposedly backed by real world currencies, and therefore inherited some properties of money. In some cases it also fulfilled the NQA (no questions asked) property.

The reason ML/TF is so dangerous, is because the underlying activity is dangerous. Money falling into hands of criminals / terrorists are dangerous. Using the Turkey illegal gambling case, the kingpin was charged for running illegal betting platforms "and" money laundering. In this case ML is a byproduct of illegal gambling, a derivative use if you will, which is why ML/TF is generally considered "risks".

I am fine with the current version which separated policy concerns and financial concerns. Arutoria (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this topic fits into both categories, and reliable sources appear to describe it in both ways.

• Some sources describe the use of stablecoins by criminals, including for activities such as money laundering. In that context it can be discussed as a type of use or adoption. Like how certain entities are using the technology. For example in Shell corporation, the article describes it as being useful for money laundering.
• At the same time, other sources discuss money laundering and terrorism financing as policy or regulatory concerns, focusing on the risks these activities pose to the financial system or to people not directly involved.

One idea could be to cover the topic in both sections but with different framing. The "Uses" section could describe documented criminal use or adoption, while the policy section could focus on regulatory concerns and broader effects on society. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell @Arutoria I believe I found a solution that may satisfy everyone's concerns. ML/TF has been moved to 'Policy and regulatory concerns', and the previous "risk" framing has been removed from that section.

How does it look? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is an improvement, thank you.

I still think this is a WP:CSECTION issue in disguise. "Concerns" is reasonable in conversation, but for an encyclopedia it's too vague, too subjective, and subtly loaded. Just as governments have 'concerns', so do the gamblers, money launderers, and scammers. The 'uses' and the 'concerns' are about the same thing from different perspectives. To be clear, the problem isn't just the section titles, it's the organization of the article. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair point about the section title. As a minimum, I renamed concerns to issues.

I did consider whether everything could be grouped under uses, but I feel that some of the content doesn't fit well there. In particular, the section about "Monetary sovereignty" doesn't seem to fit well under uses, as it's an issue which doesn't stem directly from usage. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Busy at work this week. Sorry for the late reply.

The current version looks okay. I am surprised that the pig butchering scam was removed. Thought it was pretty important. Guess I have to put it in the pig butchering article then.

One question regarding WP:CRYSTAL. I understanding not including future predictions, but I thought the opinion of FATF, being an important stakeholder on the issue, might be less of a prediction but more of a reasonable analysis on the issue? I have this question because I saw that temperature change prediction on Climate change page was considered legitimate.

Not doubting the decision. Just curious. Arutoria (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

For FATF report, I replaced the 2020 report with the 2024 one. The earlier report talked about possible money laundering risks, while the 2024 discusses current use. With the newer report discussing actual use it seemed less appropriate to discuss risks anymore.

For the pig-butchering scam section, when I checked the sources they seemed to discuss Tether specifically rather than stablecoins, in general. Because the article is about stablecoins broadly, I was concerned using it in this article would introduce original research or WP:SYNTH issues and imply that pig-butchering is a stablecoin issue and not just a Tether one as the sources outlined. If there are sources that discuss general stablecoin usage with pig-butchering scams, it could be used here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)