The CEO of Coinbase, Brian Armstrong, has advocated for a US government-issued stablecoin in an op-ed published on CNBC. Armstrong argued that this could provide access to the dollar to millions of unbanked and underbanked people and ensure that the dollar remains the global reserve currency. However, the idea of a government-issued stablecoin has been controversial due to concerns over state surveillance and centralization. Some proponents of Bitcoin argue that it was created as a decentralized alternative to traditional banking, providing freedom and property rights to its holders. The promotion of a government-issued stablecoin by a crypto executive is seen by some as a betrayal of the decentralization ethos.
But as the cryptocurrency industry has matured, so too have the expectations of its biggest investors and proponents. As Armstrong noted in his CNBC article, the biggest blockchain companies are now worth over $1 trillion in aggregate.
That kind of wealth, and the scrutiny it attracts, is impossible to ignore. Especially when there’s a real possibility that the state could still ban crypto outright.
Armstrong isn’t alone in hedging his bets. Crypto exchanges like Binance and FTX have also sought regulatory approval and government cooperation in recent months. In FTX’s case, the exchange recently struck a deal with the Miami Heat basketball team to rename its arena the “FTX Arena,” just weeks after the exchange received a subpoena from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
But at what point does this cease being an industry that’s about empowering individuals with true digital property rights, and become just another tool of the state? Especially if that state demands “good behavior” of its most high-profile participants in exchange for regulatory approval?
We’ve already seen that happen with the likes of China and Russia, which have outright banned cryptocurrency trading and mining in their countries. What’s to stop the United States from doing the same?
This is ultimately the paradox of crypto: it emerged as a challenge to the state’s monopoly on monetary policy, but it’s simultaneously an industry that’s growing too big to ignore. The likes of Armstrong and other executives must now straddle a line between supporting decentralized technology and assuaging regulators’ concerns about its potential for abuse.
If that means promoting a government-issued stablecoin, so be it. But there are likely plenty of early Bitcoin adopters who would feel as though the industry they helped build is selling out to the highest bidder.
In conclusion, while Brian Armstrong’s vision of a US-backed stablecoin may be a pragmatic solution to the regulatory pressures that the cryptocurrency industry currently faces, it ultimately goes against the ethos of decentralization that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were founded on. The tension between the need for regulation and the desire for decentralization is a central paradox of the cryptocurrency industry that will likely continue to be debated for years to come.
