Forget "too big to fail"—stablecoin issuers have a different flavor of risk that's arguably worse: being "too connected to fail." Here's the thing: these companies maintain deep political ties with private capital flowing to influential circles, and their stablecoins are essentially anchored to US government debt. This creates a tangled web where financial stability, political interests, and monetary policy intertwine in ways that could amplify systemic risk rather than contain it. It's not just a question of company size anymore—it's about the structural dependencies and power dynamics baked into the stablecoin ecosystem.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
21 Likes
Reward
21
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
Ramen_Until_Rich
· 01-09 09:55
That's right, the stablecoin approach is just a different flavor of the same old trick, with an added layer of political game-playing.
View OriginalReply0
SybilAttackVictim
· 01-09 02:07
Stablecoin issuers have really become political tools, who can't see that?
View OriginalReply0
ZkSnarker
· 01-06 14:50
ngl the "too connected to fail" framing is just regulatory capture with extra steps... and we're all supposed to pretend this isn't obvious?
Reply0
WenMoon
· 01-06 14:44
The game of "the stablecoin issuer's 'relations are too strong to fail'" is essentially a ticking time bomb of systemic risk.
View OriginalReply0
GasBankrupter
· 01-06 14:30
Is being too connected actually more dangerous? I have to admit, I buy that logic. Basically, it's just a power encirclement.
View OriginalReply0
StakoorNeverSleeps
· 01-06 14:22
The logic of the stablecoin issuer's "relationship network too connected to fail" is essentially the same old story; in other words, it's just a different name for systemic risk.
Forget "too big to fail"—stablecoin issuers have a different flavor of risk that's arguably worse: being "too connected to fail." Here's the thing: these companies maintain deep political ties with private capital flowing to influential circles, and their stablecoins are essentially anchored to US government debt. This creates a tangled web where financial stability, political interests, and monetary policy intertwine in ways that could amplify systemic risk rather than contain it. It's not just a question of company size anymore—it's about the structural dependencies and power dynamics baked into the stablecoin ecosystem.