Features of Advice and Perspectives: Crypto Leaders and Central Bankers at the Davos Forum

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, a panel aimed at defining the future of blockchain began as a technical discussion but grew into a heated debate about the role of crypto in the global economy. The characteristics of each participant became evident: crypto leaders showed great optimism about tokenization, while traditional financial leaders expressed deep concerns about system stability.

This debate revealed fundamental differences in perspectives between industry leaders and central bankers. At the heart of the building, the question about interest-bearing stablecoins—or whatever their role should be in modern finance—was central.

The Different Characteristics of Regulatory Framework Advice

A key difference in the nature of their positions was seen in the discussion about the CLARITY Act, an important professional law in the United States. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong demonstrated a determined stance in making his argument: interest-bearing stablecoins are important for consumers and for global competition against offshore tokens.

“The main reason: it benefits consumers more. People should earn more from their money,” said Armstrong, highlighting the customer-centric nature of his speech. He added a geopolitical dimension: “China says their CBDC will pay interest, and there are offshore stablecoins operating. If the U.S.-controlled stablecoin that pays rewards is banned, competition outside will just grow.”

In contrast, François Villeroy de Galhau, Governor of the Bank of France, showed a cautious and prudent character—the kind of attitude typical of central banking specialists. He was not swayed by Armstrong’s passionate approach. Instead, he rejected permission for private yield on stablecoins and digital currencies.

“The answer is simple: no,” Villeroy said when asked if digital euro should pay interest. His stance is reflected in his next promise: “The public’s goal should also be to safeguard system stability. Innovation without regulation can create serious trust issues.”

Other participants showed different characteristics. Bill Winters, CEO of Standard Chartered—a bank heavily involved in the digital asset industry—demonstrated pragmatic traits by recognizing that without yield, tokens have no appeal as a “store of value.” Ripple’s Brad Garlinghouse showed a balanced approach, supporting “fair competition” but emphasizing that “resilience” is necessary in the industry. Valérie Urbain, CEO of Euroclear, remained more neutral, while CNBC’s Karen Tso moderated.

Bitcoin Standard: The Fundamental Difference in Philosophical Characteristics

The truly persistent divide stemmed from Armstrong’s promise of a “Bitcoin standard”—a new paradigm in thinking about global finance that does not rely on national currency or central bank decisions.

“We are witnessing the birth of a new financial system that will be Bitcoin standard, rather than gold standard,” Armstrong said, demonstrating visionary and idealistic traits in his outlook.

Villeroy responded immediately, showing nationalist and democratic characteristics in defending monetary sovereignty. “Monetary policy and money are part of sovereignty. We live in democracies,” he stated, asserting that central banks should control money freely.

This debate deepened when Villeroy compared trust in central banks to trust in private cryptocurrency issuers. “Trustworthiness includes the independence of the central bank,” he said, reflecting traditional finance’s reliance on institutional authority.

Armstrong quickly corrected the misconception. “Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. No one issues it,” he said, highlighting technological and libertarian traits in his understanding. He brought the point back to freedom: “Just as central banks have independence, Bitcoin is even freer. No country, company, or individual controls it.”

Villeroy’s relentless attack raised his most serious concern—the privatization of money risking the loss of sovereignty for nations. “The first threat is the privatization of money, and the loss of sovereignty,” Villeroy said, emphasizing the protectionist aspect of his view rooted in central banking traditions.

The Balancing Act: When Do Traits Combine into a Solution

Amid the clash, a remarkable point of agreement emerged—a sign of more collaborative traits among all parties. Each, from crypto leaders to central bankers, agreed that innovation and regulation cannot be separated and must work together on a level playing field.

“The positive progress of US legislation can be seen in market infrastructure,” Armstrong said, showing constructive traits in his belief that the process is ongoing.

Garlinghouse, with a more diplomatic approach, reiterated: “I fully agree with the idea of fair competition. But there are two sides: crypto companies should adhere to banking standards, and banks should follow crypto standards.”

These traits—the passion of Armstrong for innovation, Villeroy’s prudence for stability, Standard Chartered’s pragmatism, and Ripple’s diplomacy—reflect the broader industry leading the way. The debate in Davos is not truly about choosing one side over the other—it’s about trying to understand how new technologies and traditional financial systems can coexist to create a more inclusive and efficient global economy.