Stablecoins and FX Automation for a Multi-Currency World | EBC12

I'm Aaron Sanchez. I am the Director of Industry Engagement at the MECA crypto alliance. Sorry. We aim to ensure transparency and standardization of certain global regulatory acts. So, we're here to talk about FX automation for the multi-currency world and stablecoins.

Therefore, moving money across borders requires coordination of institutions, currencies, and markets. But moving a stablecoin is one thing. But what happens when you need...Oh when you need...Oh , I'm struggling right now.

Um, a little bit, but someone still has to take the risk, the exchange rate, and provide liquidity. So, that's what we're here to talk about talk about . Um, but before we get started, I want to give the panelists a chance to introduce themselves and explain where currencies or stablecoins and FX intersect with their work. So please, Gabriel, let's begin. Hello everyone.

Um, first of all Hello everyone. Um, first of all , thank you for inviting me to be on this panel with such wonderful participants. And, um, yes, I'm Gabriel Lera. I work in BBA, ahem, as a digital asset specialist. I'm a product and project manager, and basically, uh, anything related to cryptocurrency, tokenized money, and tokenized assets.

Uh, yes. Basically, I also handle the trading side of digital asset services at BBA. And now we are trying to create the next movement of tokenized money in the banking system. Hello, I'm Magus Alix. I'm glad to be here.

At Deutsche Bank, uh, as one of the number one best banks in both payments and foreign exchange, I just do that. In general do that. In general , currency transactions are just our daily business. Uh, and when you make payments, you need a full suite of services. So suite of services.

So , stablecoins are just a natural addition to the portfolio of services we offer our clients. And personally, I'm working on, in particular, those areas in the investment bank and how we can actually implement new tokenized forms of payments. And I'm very happy to announce yesterday that in a couple of weeks we will be taking perhaps the most important first step, which is the launch of our digital asset storage. And so, it will be in a couple of weeks for corporate and institutional life institutional life , and then we will get down to business. Olaf?

Hello, Jan Sell. Glad to be here. I am the CEO of Key Wallet. We are creating an issuer of euro stablecoins. We are in the process of applying for a D&B, ahem, D&B license and hope to launch it later this year.

We are currently supported by 37 European banks. And this is an open consortium, so hopefully this number will grow number will grow . But we aim to place the euro on a blockchain with institutional-grade trust and liquidity to make it truly useful at scale. Hello everyone. Thank you for inviting me.

I am Sudeep. I represent STBL. So, I'm offering a slightly different perspective on the amazing panel we have here. So, we are building a stablecoin infrastructure. We have USSD, which is our flagship stablecoin, backed by RWA on the blockchain.

In this way, we enable ecosystems to efficiently leverage their own choice of collateral on the blockchain, provide infrastructure for liquidity and interoperability, and efficiently issue their stablecoins. And the very aspect of the effects is that we have different institutions issuing stablecoins, what we call money as a service, and they all need to communicate with each other. So this is where the effects aspect comes in. Thank you. So, as you can see, we have two big banks working in the digital asset space, starting with TradFi.

We have two developers on the developer side. One is a Euro stablecoin One is a Euro stablecoin , which is being created by a banking consortium, and one is a US dollar stablecoin, backed by US dollars, which actually has very ambitious financial products or financial engineering. So, I think we have a comprehensively balanced panel here. But before we get to that, let's take a look at the situation a little. You know, the BIS reports that in 2000-2025, the over-the-counter foreign exchange market was $9.

6 trillion . 41% of them are . 41% of them are swaps, 33% are spot transactions, and 19% are transactions, and 19% are forward transactions. So, we're talking about something that is the deepest financial markets. So, I want to turn to Gabriel to start with what the institution focuses on.

You know where stablecoins really matter, and where the market is honestly good enough? Existing systems. Well, from my perspective, I think stablecoins make a lot of sense in payment corridors that are a little bit difficult to get to. For example, yesterday I spoke to a Euro stablecoin issuer and he told me that most of the volume flows they see are coming from Africa because, essentially, Africans are African businesses that are buying Euro stablecoins, sending them to Europe to be exchanged for euros. And then the payment can be made, for example, via SEPA Instant.

So yes, I think that in the European Union we have quite efficient payment systems, and we are even developing even more efficient ones. So, in my opinion, yes, for those payment corridors that are not so convenient and fast so convenient and fast , that's where a stablecoin should go stablecoin should go . I agree with him. Does anyone have a different point of view or something to add? I, one of the problems that comes up today, especially when an individual client is short on capital short on capital and wants to do additional volume, often the problem is that you can't move money around the world fast enough for us to actually increase the limit and the volume that we want to do with it.

It's just a lack of collateral. Therefore, collateral. Therefore, any acceleration of collateral movement is always great for our business, as well as for our clients. Perfectly. Sidi, but I think you had...

Yeah, no, I absolutely completely agree with... completely agree with... you know, Gabriel and Emo here, because we're actually talking about, let's say, certain corridors, right? Everyone depends on Swift, and of course Swift is going to be, you know, the main use case now. But if you see most of the long-tail transactions, you could be talking about a couple of hours, maybe a couple of minutes, a couple of hours, or a couple of days.

And I think that's where technology complements at the moment, along with all the other infrastructure that we have. Good. Well, moving on to the multicurrency aspect, and this is where, Jan, I think you will have an interesting point of view. You know, having a stablecoin in multiple currencies is one thing, but being able to easily exchange them at a competitive price is quite another price is quite another . And when you create a stablecoin, what does it look like in the multi-currency stablecoin market ?

And do you know if they will exchange with each other or do you still need the dollar part? Well, I mean, ultimately, I think that in the long run, the multi-currency stablecoin space will be very similar to the fiat currency space today. I think we are in a position of reversion to the mean, where if you look at current flows, for example cross-border payments or global bond issuance, the euro is clearly the second global reserve currency. So you have, you know, probably 20-25% of probably 20-25% of cross-border payments in euros. You have payments in euros.

You have , you know, something like 30% of global bond issuance in euros. And I think we'll find ourselves in a similar situation with stablecoins. And then, I think, you can apply that logic to sort of match the existing fiat currency system. Hmm, but in order to achieve that, we need to, you know, we need to create these stablecoins with enough liquidity to make them usable at scale. And that's what we're trying to put together.

But then you also, I think, you know also, I think, you know , another benefit of these stablecoins, and I think, you know, Emo mentioned this earlier, is the ability to speed up collateral management, collateral movement. But to take full advantage of this, I think you'll also need to put some of the FX in the chain, because then you can really automate the whole loop. Because one of the other big advantages of stablecoins advantages of stablecoins , besides speed and everything else, is the programmability of stablecoins. So, you can move money and spread payments over time and automate this entire process. And if you can add a currency part to that, ideally on a blockchain, you could have a very, very powerful tool for moving money and moving collateral around the world.

Hmm, Sudeep, do you have that in terms of US dollars? Yeah, no, I think right now, if you see the majority, I think, you know, on Cihan's point of view, I completely agree. And on the blockchain, currently the majority of stablecoins are US dollars. It's kind of a reflection of the market right now. And I think what's really needed now is shared deep liquidity that could potentially allow for seamless movement between the US dollar and the dollar.

And this is what is happening even in the industry right now. If you look at most stablecoin volumes stablecoin volumes , they are all centered around trading, both early and late. Now, as you see more and more payments, more and more cross-border payments, I think that composition will definitely change and you will see other currencies, especially the euro, coming in at a higher volume compared to what you have today. Does anyone have anything they can do for this or... Yeah, I actually would like to double- click on what Jen said.

I actually think that from an effects perspective, the dollar will continue to retain its importance because I do n't think simply adding another technological layer is going to change the way the effects markets work right now. So we will likely still see dollar dominance in the effects markets. Yes, I mean there is fragmentation of global liquidity, so there is a small chance that this could just replicate the market as it is now. But, you know, Jen, you seem to have touched on something like this : automation, operability, programmability. So maybe that's a question Emo can answer.

You know, we talked about currency movement, but there's another choice, who actually uses whose money . So, we know there are stablecoins, there are tokenized deposits, there is central government money, but who makes that decision, which ones to use, and once that decision is made, what are you giving up? It depends a lot on the customer segment. So if you don't have a lot of cross-border payments, and overall you probably only have one payment to a supplier, then you'll probably want to delegate that to your bank. For example, I have a product called FX for cash, where you essentially just have a home account in euros, and you just say, "Okay just say, "Okay , this is the specific bill I want to pay, and the rest is left to us as the bank."

So for niche company streams, this is a great product. However, as with companies that are multinational corporations around the world, they want to have a little more control over how they want to execute their flows. Maybe they also have special accounts for major currencies. And for those who have a specific need for a specific stablecoin corridor, it can also become part of the company's overall treasury management, and they can gain more control where they want. But this is a really important point, that where they want, they don't need to.

So, overall, it's our job as a bank, as a service provider to the customer, to figure out how we can best move money around the world, and given where we have a presence around the world, and, uh, we already have pretty good rails today. In fact, if you look at correspondent banking and how quickly and specifically, for example, if you use swift, about 90% of about 90% of the value actually arrives in less than an hour. But of course that means there's another 10 percent where there might still be room for improvement, and we're willing to look at it individually, which we either choose for the client or recommend which corridor to use, or they even just delegate it to us to make it happen. Well, I mean, what would I add to that? I think that, you know, there are three ways to think about it or three kinds of indicators, right?

The first is the use case use case . So, do you know what you're actually trying to do with the form of money you need? Then, what access do you have, because not everyone has access to all of these forms of money. And finally, what is your risk profile, right? Ultimately, a wholesale CBDC has a completely different risk profile than a stablecoin.

So if you have access to that, that's probably what you would use for final settlement, but your wholesale CBDC wouldn't make a payment from Peru to Germany, right? So you need to think about these different elements about these different elements , but I think what's important is that they all complement each other. I think here in Europe we are creating a kind of monetary stack that includes a wholesale CBDC as perhaps the final layer of settlement. Um, then you have, you know, stablecoins somewhere in the middle. Um, and tokenized deposits, which I think will deposits, which I think will also interact, but will also be kind of additional forms of, um, on- chain money, um, if you will.

Um, because they all have slightly different characteristics different characteristics , right? For example, a stablecoin is a bearer instrument. Um, tokenized deposit–no. Um, and as I said, the wholesale CBDC is again, you know, designed specifically for wholesale banks. So again, different use cases, different access, um, and different, um access, um, and different, um , risk profiles.

Yes, Gabriel, when we spoke a little earlier, you talked about the customer side, the customer demand side. Do you see a world where they choose what their transaction will be? Well, not really. I think that, in my opinion, banks will continue to choose how to make payments. For example, if you talk to my mom, she doesn't know what a stablecoin is.

Um, she shouldn't know, right? Uh, she just wants to make a payment from one account to another account. Uh, in that case, uh, she doesn't care whether this payment is made via SEPA instant, or via Swift, or via stablecoins or tokenized deposits, any form of tokenized money, basically. So I think that's how it should be. And banks should become a kind of intelligent router of orders, as, for example, in the case of effects, where the best execution is done by automatic machines that choose where to execute the order, right?

It's the same with payments. Good. And Emo, I know you work with the product, do you see that you share this opinion as well ? For most corporations, yes. Um, if you're particularly involved in trading and maybe already have your liquidity in stablecoins, you'll want to manage your flows and then on your own.

Um, however, if not, then, and this applies to most today, then I would echo what Gabriel says. In general, yes, our task, our problem is to advance the money that the client wants us to advance. Um, and good. Okay, now let's talk a little about scaling. So, we talked about what we work under.

So what do you think is the biggest obstacle to achieving this scale? You know, is it regulation, liquidity, compatibility, distribution, or is it just consumer demand? And I think maybe Sandeep, you can take this because you're creating a stablecoin creating a stablecoin . Um, no, I think you listed all the problems, you know, that I have. Your demand is probably last year in scale because there is demand.

I think liquidity comes first, then compatibility. Um, then distribution, and then regulation. So demand actually comes last. So it's actually what I would call a kind of general plumbing that's being repaired, or, you know, that's why we focus on liquidity and compatibility in the first place. Regulation, I think, is already in place, and the only thing that needs to happen, of course, in regulation, and probably on the right track, is equivalence, because the first thing we're addressing here is what we're all saying, and from all sides here, but almost unanimously, that at the end of the day there has to be trust.

And trust is what trust. And trust is what comes with the last element, which is regulation, and regulation automatically attracts liquidity. Interaction is what we build, and then you all try to move towards demand. For example, what you have in the case of what blockchain offers now, or why probably some things around stablecoins might make sense with everyone participating, is something like proof of reserve. So, we're all used to seeing, I think, on the five-way side, you know, quarterly balance sheets, like, confirmations that come in.

You have something that can potentially be optimized and you know how BBVA and Deutsche Bank could effectively trust each other and probably exchange their own stablecoins. So, I think that's what we're all trying to strive for trying to strive for . Good. And Yang, from the perspective of the development of the eurozone, as well as cooperation with the banking system banking system , which also has its own interests, what do you see as an obstacle or barrier that would prevent scaling? I agree with a lot of what Sandeep said.

I think in Europe, thanks to MiCA, we have a working framework that has given, I think, institutions enough comfort to start getting involved in blockchain-based processes. And then you need the money part, right? And the monetary part, I think, now it will be either tokenized deposits or stablecoins. But if you look, we are also in talks, for example, with the Korean consortium One, while in Korea we do not yet have legislation on stablecoins. It will be coming soon, but as you know, it is a serious obstacle in Korea.

Hmm, but they're also interested in creating something like an on- chain chain element of a currency market called market called Project Pangaea, where we're not trying to partner with them to create that element because obviously the cross-border element means you have to be on the other side of the border, right? So, you have to end up in a different currency. And so, this is where , I think, the element of the foreign exchange market appears. But I think legislation is key because it provides an institutional level of interest and, you know, usability. And then, I mean, at least for me, the technology speaks for itself.

And therefore, as it is created, there will be demand . Yes, I mean it would be interesting to get a banking perspective as well. For example, scaling this market, and I mean, especially when you think about X, I think it's about the interaction of different currencies with each other. At the moment, if we look at the regulation, if you have a license in Europe, you can only interact with licensed Mika tokens. So, mentioning, for example, the Korean won or the Japanese yen, I believe that you cannot trade them directly with the EU.

You need to have a separate hub, for example in Switzerland, or you can also go to the UAE, but that is not possible from Europe. I guess this sounds more like a technical thing at this point more like a technical thing at this point , but there is currently no standardized rule on exactly how much a stablecoin is worth on your balance in Europe. This is not standardized. Each bank goes to one of the different accounting firms and gets a statement on that, and the problem is that if you have different opinions, and you might think, " might think, " Okay, maybe you need to be a little more conservative," then you might be a little less competitive in the marketplace. Such uncertainty ultimately hinders acceptance.

We need confidence that we can trade an asset, how much is it exactly worth? How capital efficient is this? And to grow, to grow further, and as a result of that, you have just at the beginning, like the logical next step that we're going to see is that more fiat and stablecoin pairs, there's going to be more liquidity. But stablecoins to stablecoins specifically, or fiat currencies to currencies not issued in Europe, is something that can only happen when the small, very technical pieces actually fall into place. So we don't need to take a detour outside of Europe, and I'm probably the biggest fundamental, and as the survey published a few weeks ago among banks showed, which showed that currently only 15% of that currently only 15% of banks have a storage solution.

15% of storage solution. 15% of banks can move digital assets at all. We are very excited to soon be part of that 15%, but without a large portion of the market starting to implement and use storage solutions as a foundation. And that's how growth will happen over time . Maybe it will be tokenized deposits, maybe stablecoins, all in the right mix that meets the needs of the customer, the scale, and I the customer, the scale, and I ...

Yes. I would like to add something. Well, first of all, I agree with liquidity being the first of the points that need to be addressed for stablecoins to move forward. But I would like to take this opportunity to defend the role of banks in the economy. So, essentially, we are the entities that create credit for everyone, both for people and for companies, and we are the entities that move money, right?

And I think it's important that we keep it that way, because if you lose any of that, then you have a problem in the financial system, right? So, in terms of us being able to use more stablecoins, there are three things we need to address, right? Not internally, but from a societal perspective. The first is regulation. There is something that really limits banks from using stablecoins, namely the impact of stablecoins on capital and the issue of them not being considered cash equivalents.

This is also the fragmentation of regulation around the world, right? This is the first point. Then the second point Then the second point is the infrastructure, which I think many of the banks present here at this conference are already building, so we should be ready in a couple of years to move any kind of digital assets. And the third item on my list item on my list is user knowledge, right? So that ties me in with what we were talking about earlier, right?

Whenever we think about developing digital asset services for customers, we have to adapt to their level of knowledge. And in my opinion, I don't know what you're thinking in this panel. I don't see many treasurers from Fortune 500 companies being able to handle blockchain handle blockchain transactions on their own right now, do I? So we need to adapt all of that experience and everything else so they can do it in a simple way. So more on the customer demand side.

Good. Well, you know, we're talking about foreign stablecoins foreign stablecoins . We have, you know, an American stablecoin, which may have some difficulties. We talked so deeply about the introduction of Mika, but European guarantees can be transferred. Many people will trust this jurisdiction with the rules, and this can be used in other jurisdictions.

But how should regulators allow the circulation of trusted foreign stablecoins without importing unacceptable risk or fragmenting global liquidity? Maybe this is what banks need so they can use them conveniently . And maybe Gabriel, you can start with this can start with this . Well, uh...Yes, in my opinion...

Excuse me, could you repeat the question? Basically, how should a foreign government or governments allow the import of trusted foreign stablecoins into circulation without importing without importing any risk or fragmentation of global liquidity? Yes. So, I see two different points of view here. The perspective of a developing country with a not- so-strong currency, for which importing US dollars in the form of stablecoins could be a huge challenge for their economy, right?

In terms of creating hyperinflation. So that's one perspective, and there's another one that's more relevant to us because we're in the EU with MiCA, which reminds me of an article published last week about a multi-issue release that analyzed how the impact of, for example, Circle issuing stablecoins in different parts of the world with different regulations and different levels of consumer protection could impact the security and protection of collateral, essentially. And I think there are a lot of aspects that we need to address from a regulatory perspective so that we can really implement stablecoins. Certainly. Now, and Sandeep, you know, we talked about some of the ambitious financial engineering that you have that engineering that you have that may not be successful in Europe.

So I would be very interested to hear your point of view. For example point of view. For example , maybe talk a little bit about what you're creating and why it might not be implemented as clearly in MiCA. No, no, absolutely. So, one of the most important points that regulators have had so far is the virtual absence of profitable stablecoins.

This is something that has been resisted, and rightly so, because again, returns are a function of risk. So maybe you potentially have, and I think for example you see this in particular in genius, where you have money markets or treasury bonds as, you know, the underlying collateral, and potentially what people want to have is either cash or cash equivalent as collateral. And then of course there are those looking for yield who will probably go for something a little more exotic, they might want to issue stablecoins, which might be like a combination of private credit and money markets. So we, as a technology layer technology layer , allow for the use of different types of real assets on the chain. Treasury is something natural, money markets, private credit to some extent.

And again , this is a function of risk. Technically, everyone should have the right to take the risk they are willing to take willing to take , but separate the element of return. This is what we do. We separate the yield and the principal because, for example, you can use a private loan with a very high discount rate, maybe a high-quality private loan, or you can use tokenized money market instruments. Of course, private lending will not pass regulatory scrutiny now, but the most important thing is separation.

And, I think separation. And, I think , this is where everyone will gradually go, probably increasing risk depending on the counterparties. Of course, banks will use the dollar equivalent dollar equivalent , and then there may be certain institutions that will have a completely different usage scenario. For example, the largest stablecoin to date had a different collateral combination that was used and has been successful so far. So again, it's a bit of a contrarian view, but the point here is to make it more collaborative and where decisions can be made transparently based on the risk itself, and then fix the other layers around the underlying liquidity and counterparty risk in the way that we've done within a transparent governance framework.

Ahem. And Jan, I also want to hear your perspective because you are developing a euro stablecoin with a consortium of banks. So in a sense it's an institutional, maybe a euro token, a stablecoin. So what's your perspective based on what Siddique said in his product and how might that interact with a product like yours and also from your perspective of use in different jurisdictions in terms of the stability of your state? Yes.

Um, well, you know, as I said you know, as I said , I think we have a relatively strong structure in Europe with Mika, and now for consulting, so it can still improve. Um, but obviously one of the themes, as Gabriel said, is the multi-issue theme, and how do we deal with that? Um, I think from my perspective, the long-term goal should be some kind of equivalence mechanism, right? Um, I'm not exactly sure what that looks like, but you know, I think there are opportunities to create something like that because I think we have similar mechanisms in other pieces of legislation and other regulations. So, um, I think, you know, that's where it should be, you know, where it should end up, because, um up, because, um , stablecoins and/or any other, you know, pretty much any blockchain-based process is by definition global, right?

Right out of the box, right? And so, um, you know, I think the legislation has to stay on top of it somewhere, um, because the tokens are going to move, um, and then the tokens are going to be available. Um, yes. And then from a banking perspective, Emo, do you really agree that we need an equivalence regime. We need something like minimum standards around the world.

What exactly is needed from a liquidity management perspective . I mean, and if a particular issue holds, say, 99% of Treasuries, and suddenly there's a big event in the market and a huge outflow, then you're very much exposed to the market risk of the particular underlying asset. I mean, asset. I mean, we see it these days, especially in the US, there's a lot of volatility on the Treasury side right now. Um, and in these cases, you need to be sure that there is enough liquidity for the projected outflow so that you have at least a minimal margin for the outflow.

I think that's one of the biggest risks, and in general, of course, um, as a proper proof of reserve. These are such absolute, absolute fundamental things about what a stablecoin is. It must be stable. So you maintain its stability. You need to maintain liquidity, and that's another part that's not yet developed enough to have enough market enough market makers around the world and to make sure that you can trade it at any given time in the market, not just directly, which is often the case today with how different vaults are set up when they interact with stablecoins stablecoins .

Good. Now I want to open this up to the audience to have at least one or two questions before we wrap up. It was about 7 minutes before they gave their signature to close. I want to open this. So, does anyone in the audience have any questions?

I was supposed to have a little...Oh, that's it. Just saying. So, uh, especially for the gentleman in the middle, uh, stablecoins, you have... stablecoins, you have...

What's the story? You have multiple currencies, multiple chains, uh, potentially also CBDCs, tokenized money and assets. From an operational perspective, there is a lot of flexibility in management, and I wonder, for providers like Fireblocks and so on, is it worth replacing one form of digital fiat currency with another? I'm happy to start with this. Uh, I mean, that's the challenge.

I mean, challenge. I mean, we have a full warehouse on site. We have been living for about 150 years. I... So obviously these two things compete with each other, and that's exactly the investment question that investment question that we get from our board.

Just like you did on day one, you create additional costs, but to achieve savings, you need scale. So, it's kind of a long-term issue, and we'll also need to look at, as we discussed today, different equivalent regimes on the stablecoin side, the same goes for tokenized deposit, where it's often an island-based solution, which currently limits the value to some extent as it develops. I would say yes, further improvements will be worth it because ultimately you need to remain competitive and the best in the market to maintain your share, especially for an institution like ours, which is one of the largest in payments and the largest in currencies. I believe we need to make these investments to stay where we are in terms of overall market share. I would just add that the system looks complicated from the outside, maybe right now, and also because you still have several, many, many chains.

I don't think we'll end up in a world where you have to work on 24 or 84 different blockchains. Um, I think the complexity will decrease as we grow and scale. But if you look at it from another angle, you know that the current system is also quite complex with numerous correspondent banks, and in fact there are already several forms of money. In Europe, there is electronic money, you know, um, actually, you know, you know, the stablecoin in Europe is EMT, the electronic money token. So, in fact, it's just an old form of electronic money that we've had in Europe for a long time, implementing blockchain.

It really is that simple, if you will, but it also suggests that all of these systems already have different forms of money. You know, here's the central bank money. They're just not on the chain yet, are they? So, there's a second goal, there's advice, there's all these systems that already exist. So, you know, what we're building is no more complicated than the existing system.

In fact, I would argue that it will be much less difficult in the long run. Um, and you'll have , um, you know, and you'll also just expand the use cases. Um, because, you know, as we said before, it's an opportunity to move supplies at a much higher speed. Um, I was talking to trade trade finance companies, and I was really interested to hear, for example, that they are now working in stablecoins. Um, you know, all the suppliers, the whole chain, where they've seen a multi-fold increase in the availability of supplies because supplies can now be moved in minutes.

It does not move in days. Um, and that just changed the whole business model, you know? Um, so for me, this is, you know, a future to build towards, because it's, you know, it's really exciting. In fact, it's really an evolution of where we are now. I want to add something, which is that , um, in some parts of the financial system, they still use 3270 technology and also COBOL code.

So, every year the costs of operating such old infrastructure become higher. So, I think in the future we will see a point where the capital costs of investing in replacing this infrastructure will be less than operating the old one. Also, we actually see, for example, the example, the Monetary Authority of Singapore creating the Guardian project with the BIS Guardian project with the BIS , where they are essentially creating an infrastructure where all these different tokenized assets can exist, right? Tokenized securities, tokenized deposits from banks, wholesale CBDCs from governments, stablecoins. So I think if this is created, it will be key to us really moving forward towards implementing blockchain technology in the financial industry.

Good. Since we're running out of time and this is a perfect transition, so let's take a look at them one by one. So, let's look at the year 2030. What are the clearest signs that stablecoins and automated exchange rates will become mainstream by 2030? Let me start from the very end start from the very end .

Yes, I think if we essentially do it it will become routine. This will become invisible. I think this is what success looks like. You will have different uses, different niches. You will have many participants.

I think regional banks, as well as large banks, will play a role as liquidity providers. You know, FX will potentially leverage the best of the stablecoin infrastructure on the blockchain, sort of upstream. And yes, I think that's how things can develop. Yes, I completely disagree. I completely agree.

I think most of the stuff will be "under the hood" and, you know, will be abstracted away from most of the, you know, corporations or people who use it. But I think for me, you know, the measure of success would be that we started developing completely new products, completely new ways of doing these things, instead of just putting what we're doing now, which is more, you know, taking old systems and putting them on the blockchain. I think the next step in this evolution should be to find completely new ways of working, completely new tools made possible by the possibilities of technology. Stablecoins are not dependent on a specific use case and country, as we have explored. And I particularly believe that this number that I mentioned earlier is 15% of banks providing access, and ideally we have about 100.

We probably still won't reach 100%, but I think it's a clear sign. Well, my answer will be much shorter. I would be happy if by 2030 at least some portion of payments would be made via blockchain rails in blockchain rails in any of the forms of tokenized money tokenized money that exist. Fantastically. Good.

Well, we're out of time, so I want to give a round of applause to the two developers and the two people who are implementing this into their systems. Thank you.