Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller signaled that the rising use of dollar-backed stablecoins could extend the United States’ monetary influence, potentially importing US monetary conditions into other economies as these tokens gain traction globally. Speaking at the 32nd Dubrovnik Economics Conference, Waller framed stablecoins as a payment instrument rather than a threat, suggesting they intensify competition in the payments space rather than undermine it.

In the same Dubrovnik event, Megan Greene, a Bank of England policymaker and fellow panelist on “Stablecoins and monetary policy,” offered a more apprehensive take. Greene argued that stablecoins could fade from view within a few years, while she predicted tokenized deposits might become the dominant pillar of the digital monetary landscape. Their exchange highlighted a broader debate about how different digital money formats could coexist or supplant one another in the coming years.

Key takeaways

• Dollar-backed stablecoins could extend US monetary conditions internationally, according to a senior Federal Reserve official.
• Stablecoins are viewed by some as ongoing payment competition, not inherently dangerous, and they may bring competitive dynamics to global payments.
• There is a contrasting, evolving view on CBDCs and tokenized deposits, with some policymakers expecting tokenized deposits to become more prominent than stablecoins.
• US policy on stablecoins and yield remains a hurdle for broader crypto legislation, even as a framework moves through Congress.

Dollar-stablecoins and the reach of US monetary policy

During the Dubrovnik discussion, Waller emphasized that stablecoins—when backed by the dollar—need not be painted as inherently problematic. He described stablecoins as “a payment instrument” and asserted that they introduce competition into the payments ecosystem. His remarks align with a broader view among some policymakers that dollar-denominated stablecoins can serve as a bridge for cross-border payments, potentially reflecting US monetary policy conditions in other economies that adopt these tokens.

Bloomberg News relayed Waller’s remarks, noting that countries leaning more on US-dollar stability through stablecoins could import US monetary conditions. While Waller stopped short of embracing stablecoins as a policy fix or a substitute for traditional central banking tools, his stance underscores a realization among policymakers that digital money forms are altering the cadence of monetary transmission, even if the governance and risk frameworks remain unsettled.

Greene’s counterpoint at the same stage highlighted a more dynamic, if uncertain, trajectory for digital money. She argued that tokenized deposits—essentially bank deposits expressed in a tokenized format—could become a dominant force in relatively short order, possibly outpacing stablecoins in scale and speed of adoption. Reuters captured her metaphorical framing of the evolving ecosystem: “a massive race between the tortoise, the hare and the rhino,” with the tortoise representing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), the hare symbolizing stablecoins, and the rhino standing for tokenized deposits. Greene suggested the rhino might ultimately surge ahead, taking off in the near future.

The divergent viewpoints reflect a long-standing debate about the future of state-backed digital money versus privately issued digital currencies. Waller expressed a degree of skepticism about CBDCs, while Greene suggested that the market could settle into a triad of technologies—CBDCs, stablecoins, and tokenized deposits—each serving different use cases and regulatory footprints. Their exchange occurred within the context of a broader policy dialogue about how to balance innovation with financial stability and consumer protection.

It’s worth noting that the Dubrovnik discussion occurred amid a broader regulatory environment in which central banks have grown cautious about the speed and design of digital money initiatives. The Bank of England’s stance, as echoed in Greene’s remarks, contrasts with Waller’s caution, indicating a spectrum of priorities among major economies when contemplating CBDCs, stablecoins, and the possibility of programmable money via tokenized deposits.

US policy hurdles and the path to clarity

The Dubrovnik panel’s informal atmosphere did little to obscure a central tension in US policy: progress on crypto regulation has been slowed by debates over stablecoin yields and the regulatory framework for digital assets. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a key component of the broader regulatory push, has advanced within Congress but faces an uncertain path to enactment.

The legislation, often described as one of the most significant crypto regulatory efforts in the United States, has cleared hurdles in the Senate Banking Committee but has not yet secured passage in both chambers. The bill’s fate is intertwined with the broader political calendar, including midterm elections and the banking lobby’s influence, which has at times opposed certain stablecoin provisions and yield strategies. As of the latest reporting, it remained uncertain whether the CLARITY Act would be signed into law in 2026, despite its passage through committee.

In parallel, Senator Cynthia Lummis has warned that failure to pass the framework could cost the US its leadership role in crypto. In a recent X post, she argued that America’s dollar-dominated financial system has anchored global stability for a century and that the CLARITY Act would help the US build the next iteration of that system—“before Beijing decides it will.” Lummis’ message underscores a strategic imperative within the US policy arena: moving from debate to enactment to preserve influence in a rapidly digitizing financial world.

The broader implication for market participants is nuanced. While a clear regulatory regime could unlock investment and innovation, the transition period remains fraught with risk as different agencies and lawmakers weigh issues such as stablecoin yield, consumer protection, and the prudential requirements for tokenized deposits. The sense of urgency expressed by lawmakers like Lummis reflects a concern that lagging policy could invite competitive pressure from other jurisdictions that move more decisively on digital asset frameworks.

Context surrounding the EU and other jurisdictions also colors the policy backdrop. For instance, reporting around European discussions on euro stablecoins has underscored regulators’ emphasis on financial stability risks and the need for robust safeguards. While not the focus of the Dubrovnik discussion, these regional developments contribute to a global pattern: policymakers are balancing innovation with systemic risk as digital money becomes more embedded in everyday commerce.

As the policy dialogue evolves, investors, traders, and builders are watching not just the letter of the law but how its interpretation and enforcement will shape product design, custody solutions, and the monetization pathways for digital assets. The CLARITY Act’s progress will continue to be a bellwether for the pace at which the United States integrates digital money into its financial framework—and, by extension, how it competes on the world stage with other digital finance ecosystems.

In sum, the Dubrovnik debate highlighted a tension baked into the future of digital money: a landscape where CBDCs, stablecoins, and tokenized deposits each have roles to play, but where policy clarity and timely enactment will determine which path gains traction first. Market participants should monitor developments in the US legislative process, watching for signs that a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets is near, and for indicators about how rapidly tokenized deposits and stablecoins will scale in a shifting global payments regime.

Readers should stay tuned for updates on the CLARITY Act’s progress through Congress, any new central-bank stances on digital money, and how evolving regulatory expectations will influence the design and adoption of dollar-backed stablecoins and tokenized deposits in the coming months.

US Federal Reserve governor Christopher Waller said Sunday that the growing use of dollar-backed stablecoins could bolster the global influence of US monetary policy.

Waller told participants at the 32nd Dubrovnik Economics Conference that countries that increasingly rely on stablecoins backed by the US dollar may effectively import US monetary conditions, Bloomberg News reported Sunday.

“I’ve always just looked at ​stablecoins as a payment instrument; there’s nothing evil about it, nothing dangerous about it,” Waller said. “They ​are just bringing competition into the payments world,” Reuters reported.

Source: The 32nd Dubrovnik Economic Conference

A contrary view was presented by his fellow presenter, Bank of England policymaker Megan Greene, who said stablecoins could fade from view in a matter of a few years. She said:

“I think tokenized deposits are probably going to take over from stablecoins and ​five years from now, I suspect we might wonder why we were talking about stablecoins.”

Both were part of a panel discussion titled “Stablecoins and monetary policy” at the annual Croatian National Bank event.

A long-time skeptic of central bank digital currencies (CBDC), Waller said that enthusiasm for CBDCs has faded among many central banks. BoE’s Greene disagreed.

“I like to think of it as a massive race between the tortoise, the hare and the rhino.” Greene said. “The tortoise is the central ⁠bank ​digital currency …the hare is stablecoins and the rhino is tokenized ​deposits. We’ll probably end up with all three, but if I had to put money in one … it would be the ​rhino, tokenised deposits, which I think will probably take off,” Reuters reported.

Related: ECB pushes back on euro stablecoin proposals, citing financial stability risks

Stablecoin policy stymies US crypto legislation

Debate over US policy on stablecoin yield has stymied progress on the US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act under consideration in the US Senate. 

The crypto market structure bill is one of the most significant pieces of crypto regulations in the US, but it is unclear if it will be signed into law in 2026 due to opposition from the banking lobby and the looming US midterm elections.

The CLARITY Act, which aims to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets passed out of the Senate Banking Committee on May 15 after months of debate between banks and the crypto industry over stablecoin yield provisions. However, it must still pass both chambers of Congress before heading to the president’s desk.

Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis warned Saturday that the US will lose its leadership position in crypto to other countries, including China, if lawmakers fail to pass the legislation this year.

Source: Senator Cynthia Lummis

“America built the dollar-dominated financial system that has anchored global stability for a century. The Clarity Act ensures we build the next one. The time to act is now, before Beijing decides it will,” Lummis said in an X post.

Learn: Why banks are fighting stablecoins after shaping the rules

Strategy’s leadership, led by Strategy chairman Michael Saylor, signaled on Sunday that the bitcoin treasury company plans to announce fresh BTC purchases in the coming days as it presses toward a pivotal proxy vote tied to its STRC perpetual preferred stock. The vote centers on a proposed dividend schedule change and could shape Strategy’s ongoing BTC accumulation narrative amid a volatile macro backdrop.

Bitcoin traded around the mid-70s in May, with a 3.65% decline for the month, anchoring the context for Strategy’s ongoing buy program. In parallel, Saylor posted a bubble-chart update showing Strategy’s bitcoin purchases over nearly six years, a visual that has become a familiar prelude to news of new acquisitions. The chart is drawn from StrategyTracker.com, a data tracker based in Iceland, and accompanied Saylor’s message “Working Better.”

Key takeaways

• Michael Saylor signaled imminent Bitcoin purchases by Strategy in the days ahead of the June 7 proxy vote on STRC dividends.
• STRC investors would shift to semi-monthly dividends from monthly, a change Strategy says could reduce reinvestment lag, improve liquidity, market efficiency, and price stability if approved.
• Strategy’s BTC holdings remain substantial (843,738 BTC) with an average cost around $75,701 per coin; BTC price hovered near $73,566 at the time of publication, after May’s 3.65% decline.
• The vote’s outcome hinges on retail shareholder participation, a dynamic historically skewed toward institutional holders, according to a Harvard Law School governance study.
• Bitcoin’s longer-term technical backdrop includes the 200‑week moving average moving decisively above $61,000, a level some technicians view as a bullish signal for the asset’s trajectory.

Saylor signals new BTC purchases ahead of STRC vote

As the June 7 proxy deadline approaches, Strategy’s leadership has doubled down on communicating with shareholders and the broader market about its capital allocation path. The company’s anticipated purchases come in the wake of a post in which Saylor shared a chart from StrategyTracker.com—described as an Iceland-registered project—that tracks Strategy’s bitcoin acquisitions dating back to the firm’s early years. The accompanying caption, “Working Better,” underscores a continued emphasis on measured accumulation rather than sudden shifts in stance.

Strategy’s track record remains sizeable: the bitcoin treasury now totals 843,738 BTC, acquired at an average reported cost of roughly $75,701 per coin. While the firm’s buying cadence has varied with market conditions, the chart and historical cadence have become a bellwether signal for market participants watching for potential new purchases. At the time of writing, Bitcoin traded around $73,566, reflecting a broader May pullback from earlier highs.

The broader significance for investors lies in how Strategy’s ongoing accumulation intersects with its corporate structure and governance. StrategyTracker.org emphasizes that the tracker highlights the company’s long-running relationship with bitcoin as a treasury asset, a feature that has helped position Strategy as a visible, public-facing holder within the crypto ecosystem. The Icelandic registration of StrategyTracker is a note favored by market watchers as part of the broader transparency surrounding Strategy’s strategy and holdings.

For readers tracking the dynamics of the world’s largest public holder of BTC, Saylor’s posts and the StrategyTracker visualization continue to function as signals of potential near-term pacing for new BTC purchases, especially as the STRC vote looms.

STRC dividend reform and the race for retail votes

Central to Strategy’s governance discussion is the proposal to change STRC’s dividend frequency from monthly to semi-monthly. The company argues that such a shift could reduce reinvestment lag, improve liquidity, increase market efficiency, and contribute to price stability—if shareholders approve the amendment. The proposal sits at the heart of the June 7 proxy vote, which determines whether the change goes into effect for 2026 and beyond.

In the days leading up to the vote, Strategy has leaned into outreach to retail investors, a cohort that has historically shown uneven participation in proxy affairs. An internal Strategy investor relations communication circulated to employees outlined the 2026 annual meeting proposals and provided links to the shareholder resolutions under consideration. In public messaging on X (formerly Twitter), Strategy underscored the 50% voting threshold required for the STRC amendment, noting that all votes count given the 85 million STRC shares outstanding as of April 17, 2026.

A day before the outreach, Strategy’s CEO Phong Le published a short video thanking STRC shareholders for their trust and explaining the proposed amendment’s implications in a concise format. This kind of leadership outreach illustrates the push to mobilize retail participation ahead of the vote, a dynamic that analysts say can be a meaningful lever in outcomes that hinge on retail proxy engagement.

The retail-vs-institutional voting dynamic has been a recurring theme in corporate governance research. A Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance note from late 2025 highlighted that retail investors have historically cast votes on roughly 29% of the shares they own across five proxy seasons, while institutional holders voted approximately 77% of their shares. The discrepancy remains a reminder that turnout in retail-led votes can shape outcomes, even when a company holds a significant stake in a singular asset such as BTC.

For readers examining Strategy’s trajectory, the STRC vote is not just a procedural step; it could influence the liquidity and perceived stability of the STRC instrument itself, as well as the company’s overall approach to BTC as a treasury asset in a market that has shown volatility and evolving regulatory scrutiny.

The public-facing materials and investor communications also point to an ongoing effort to balance retail participation with the long-term strategic aims that Strategy has pursued since becoming the largest public holder of BTC. The decision by STRC holders to approve or reject the semi-monthly dividend model will feed into the broader discourse around how crypto-backed corporate structures can govern and distribute crypto wealth in ways that align with shareholder value and risk management.

Bitcoin price, technical backdrop, and what’s next

Beyond corporate governance, market technicians have focused on Bitcoin’s price trajectory and long-run signals. Blockstream CEO Adam Back highlighted that BTC’s 200-week moving average has moved well above the $61,000 level, a metric that some traders view as a sign of sustained, contrarian upward momentum. The significance of the 200-week moving average lies in its tendency to smooth out short-term volatility and provide a long-run perspective on trend direction. As the STRC vote unfolds and Strategy continues its accumulation narrative, traders will watch whether the price action confirms a renewed uptrend or tests a fresh support level amid ongoing macro volatility.

Readers should also monitor Strategy’s next moves in BTC purchases. If the company ends up signaling or executing new acquisitions in the days following the vote, the combination of fresh supply from a large holder and any changes to STRC’s dividend mechanics could create ripples across both the equity and crypto markets. For investors, the key questions are how these actions affect Strategy’s balance sheet, the liquidity profile of STRC, and the potential signaling effect for other corporate entities seeking to align crypto treasury management with traditional governance frameworks.

All data points cited—Strategy’s BTC holdings and average cost, the June 7 proxy deadline, the STRC share count, and the voting thresholds—are drawn from Strategy’s public disclosures and market data contemporaneous with the article’s reporting window. The linkage to StrategyTracker provides a historical lens on Strategy’s accumulation pattern, while the investor-relations communications illustrate the ongoing governance engagement that accompanies the ownership of a crypto-forward treasury asset at scale.

For readers keeping score, the next major milestone is the outcome of the STRC proxy vote and any subsequent commentary from Strategy about its BTC purchase cadence. Market participants should watch for any official disclosure of new BTC buys and for how the STRC dividend change interacts with the company’s broader capital allocation framework and treasury strategy in a climate of rising regulatory scrutiny and evolving market structure for crypto assets.

As the narrative unfolds, observers should remain attentive to how retail investor participation in governance evolves, whether the STRC amendment passes, and how Strategy’s ongoing BTC acquisitions influence perceptions of crypto-backed corporate finance in the broader market.

What to watch next: the June 7 proxy vote result, any announced BTC purchases from Strategy in the wake of the vote, and the market’s interpretation of STRC’s new dividend regime as a potential model for other crypto-bearing corporate entities.