In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of interest in stablecoins worldwide. Banks, fintech companies, and leading payment platforms are quickly adopting digital currencies to keep up with technological changes. Why are such diverse players in the financial market so actively betting on stablecoins, and how can this change the familiar architecture of the global financial system?

Explosive growth of stablecoins: new trends and statistics

What are stablecoins? These are cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to stable assets such as the US dollar or gold. The most notable representatives of the market are USDT by Tether and USDC by Circle. Unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, whose value is subject to high volatility, stablecoins provide predictable rates thanks to reserve backing.

Statistics from recent years demonstrate impressive growth in the popularity of these digital instruments. According to Morgan Stanley Investment Management, by September 2023, the total market capitalization of stablecoins reached $300 billion, which is 75% higher than the previous year. This large-scale leap indicates a global trend toward the digitalization of financial flows.

Major investment banks and analytical centers predict further acceleration of this growth. Citi claims that the actual pace of stablecoin adoption has exceeded even the most optimistic expectations: according to the bank’s latest forecast, by 2030, the volume of stablecoin issuance may grow to $1.9 trillion in the base scenario and up to $4 trillion in the most favorable conditions. These figures are impressive, but what is behind them? The number of users and companies integrating stablecoins into their infrastructure is constantly increasing. For example, payment services like Stripe have started supporting stablecoin payouts, and cross-border transfers using them are becoming commonplace.

Why banks and fintech companies are betting on stablecoins

What are the advantages of stablecoins for traditional market participants? First of all, it is the ability to make payments around the clock and instantly settle transactions. In the classic banking system, transfers are often accompanied by delays, fees, and complex procedures, while stablecoins allow value to be transferred in digital format as easily as sending an email.

According to Joe Lau, co-founder and president of the Alchemy platform, stablecoins and deposit tokens are becoming the foundation for programmable and transparent next-generation cash flows. He notes: “On this basis, money can move with the security of the banking system and the speed of the internet” (source — CoinDesk).

The advantages for financial companies include:

• Lower fees for money transfers
• Lightning-fast settlements, especially in international operations
• The ability to integrate digital money into corporate services and payroll projects

Real examples are already noticeable. For instance, companies in the payroll services sector are considering stablecoins as an element of infrastructure for international payments, and payment giants such as Stripe are developing solutions based on them.

It is important to note here that online platforms outside the classic financial sector are also accelerating the adoption of stablecoins, as instant settlements and the predictability of digital assets are critically important to them. This is especially evident in highly competitive segments where companies are testing new models of user interaction.

For example, in the industry of gamified entertainment services, stablecoins are already widely used for topping up balances and withdrawing funds.

Gambling services and online casinos were among the first to use such a system. This is confirmed by data from industry websites in the top search results. Such as a site featuring online casinos where you can get an Ontario no deposit bonus. According to the site, almost all major and lesser-known online casinos have long and successfully accepted various cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins.

The iGaming sector experiments with the technology earlier than traditional financial institutions precisely because of the high transaction frequency and the need to reduce operating costs.

So what is the key difference from classic banking and payment channels? Stablecoins are not tied to a specific country or regulator, and the technological base allows for flexible scaling of services and integration of new functions.

Tokenized deposits: alternative or addition?

However, development is not limited to stablecoins alone. In recent months, banks have been more actively implementing tokenized deposits—digital analogues of classic deposits, issued as tokens on the blockchain. A classic example is JPM Coin, a project by JPMorgan, and HSBC has announced its own initiatives in this direction.

How do tokenized deposits differ from stablecoins? It is important to understand: a stablecoin is backed on a 1:1 principle, meaning that for every digital dollar issued, there is one real dollar in the issuer’s account. Tokenized deposits more often use a fractional reserve model, which is familiar to banks: part of the funds is kept in reserve, and the rest is used in the bank’s investment activities.

Who are these instruments intended for? Tokenized deposits are most often available only to clients of a specific bank and are integrated into its infrastructure. Stablecoins, on the contrary, are universal and can be used by any participant—from individuals to large corporations.

Banks use tokenized deposits to improve internal settlements, speed up payments, and test new digital services without going beyond established regulatory norms.

Competition and convergence: how financial infrastructure is changing

The question arises: are banks competing with stablecoin issuers, or is a convergence of models occurring? Here, a two-way process is observed. Banks are readily adopting technological solutions that have appeared in the digital currency market and are creating their own tokenized products. In turn, stablecoin issuers strive to integrate with banking structures and comply with capital and reserve requirements.

According to Joe Lau, “tokenized deposits turn the banking system into programmable infrastructure, and stablecoins modernize the dollar for global markets.” This leads to the emergence of hybrid platforms and a search for new regulatory standards in the digital environment.

How is the financial landscape changing? Competition between banks, fintech companies, and new players is increasing. The number of innovations in services and ways of storing funds is growing, and the adoption of automation and programmable payments is accelerating.

Senator Bernie Sanders has escalated the debate over artificial intelligence infrastructure by calling for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers in the United States, arguing that the technology’s rapid expansion is racing ahead of democratic oversight while concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few technology giants.

In a post on X this week, Sanders said a pause would give lawmakers time to determine how AI should serve the public interest rather than “just the 1 percent.” The Vermont senator framed the current AI boom not as a neutral wave of innovation, but as an economic and political shift driven by ultra-wealthy executives who stand to gain enormously while communities bear the environmental, social, and fiscal costs.

At the heart of Sanders’ argument is the scale and intensity of modern AI infrastructure. Data centers built to train and run large language models consume vast amounts of electricity and water, often far exceeding the demands of traditional cloud computing facilities. In some regions, proposed AI campuses are projected to use as much power as entire cities, forcing utilities to expand grids, build new power plants, or delay the retirement of fossil fuel facilities. Sanders argues those costs ultimately fall on taxpayers and ratepayers, not the companies profiting from AI.

Water use has become an equally contentious issue. Many AI data centers rely on water-intensive cooling systems, raising alarms in drought-prone states and rural communities already facing scarcity. Local opposition has intensified in parts of the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast, where residents say they are being asked to trade long-term environmental sustainability for short-term economic promises that may never fully materialize.

Sanders has also tied the data center buildout to fears about automation and job displacement. He has repeatedly warned that AI and robotics could eliminate millions of jobs across sectors ranging from customer service and administration to logistics and manufacturing. While companies often argue that AI will create new roles and boost productivity, Sanders contends that history shows productivity gains rarely translate into higher wages or job security without strong labor protections.

Those concerns have been reinforced by warnings from within the AI industry itself. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has said AI could wipe out as many as half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years. Sanders has cited such statements as evidence that policymakers are unprepared for the speed and scale of disruption AI could bring if deployment continues unchecked.

The senator’s call for a moratorium comes as AI infrastructure spending accelerates at an extraordinary pace. Major technology firms are investing tens of billions of dollars annually in new data centers, advanced chips, and long-term energy contracts in a bid to outspend rivals and lock in dominance. That arms race, Sanders argues, is less about meeting current demand and more about consolidating control over the digital economy.

He has also questioned why public resources are being marshaled to support private AI ambitions. State and local governments frequently offer tax breaks, subsidized land, and infrastructure upgrades to attract data center projects, even as schools, housing, and public services remain underfunded. Sanders says this model mirrors earlier periods of industrial consolidation, where public support helped create private monopolies with limited accountability.

It is not certain that Sanders’ proposal will gain traction in Congress. A nationwide moratorium would face stiff resistance from the tech industry and lawmakers who see AI as central to U.S. economic competitiveness. Still, his stance reflects a broader shift in the conversation around artificial intelligence.

The debate is no longer confined to innovation and growth, but increasingly focused on who controls the infrastructure, who pays the hidden costs, and who benefits from the transformation. The question is no longer whether AI will reshape society, but whether governments will assert enough oversight to ensure that its benefits are shared broadly rather than captured by a narrow elite.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has moved to hold Illusory Systems, which operated the cryptocurrency bridge Nomad, financially accountable for one of the most damaging crypto security breaches of 2022, accusing the company of overstating the safety of its platform while failing to meet basic cybersecurity standards.

In a proposed settlement agreement released this week, the FTC said Nomad must repay users who lost funds in the cyberattack that ultimately drained about $186 million from the bridge. While some assets were later recovered, regulators estimate customers were left with losses of roughly $100 million.

The FTC’s complaint centers on events leading up to the breach. According to the agency, Nomad deployed a software update in June 2022 that contained what it described as “inadequately tested code.” That update allegedly introduced a critical vulnerability, which attackers exploited about a month later, triggering a rapid and chaotic drain of funds from the bridge. The incident quickly became one of the most widely cited examples of how fragile cross-chain infrastructure can be when security controls fail.

Nomad had marketed itself at the time as a “security-first” blockchain bridge, a claim the FTC says was not backed up by its internal practices. The agency alleges the company failed to adopt secure coding standards, did not maintain an effective vulnerability management program, and lacked safeguards that could have limited the scale of losses once the breach began. It also said Nomad’s incident response capabilities were insufficient, allowing the exploit to spiral and compounding user losses.

Under the proposed settlement, Nomad would be required to repay about $37.5 million to users who remain out of pocket. The payment would be due within one year of the agreement being finalized, or within 30 days after the conclusion of any related litigation, whichever comes later. The FTC acknowledged that the amount falls well short of total losses but framed the repayment as a concrete step toward restitution.

Beyond financial redress, the settlement imposes significant operational requirements. Nomad would have to establish a comprehensive security program, designate a specific employee responsible for maintaining it, and submit to regular third-party security assessments. The company would also be permanently barred from making misrepresentations about the security of its products, a restriction aimed at preventing similar claims in future ventures.

Nomad has agreed to the proposed terms. The settlement will now go through a public comment period before returning to the FTC for a second and final vote, a standard process for agency enforcement actions.

“This case sends a clear message,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures. It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.”

The case also highlights the challenges of accountability in the crypto sector years after high-profile failures. Nomad today has a minimal digital footprint. Public communications have been absent since 2023, and its website provides no clear contact information, underscoring how difficult it can be for affected users to seek answers long after a platform has effectively gone dark.

The action against Nomad, however, signals a continued willingness to use consumer protection laws to police cybersecurity claims in crypto and fintech, even when companies are no longer active. For users, it offers limited financial recovery, but also a rare acknowledgment from a U.S. regulator that exaggerated security promises in the crypto market can carry real consequences.