Plans to issue stablecoins denominated in local currencies to reduce reliance on dollar-linked tokens may unintentionally make it easier to move value into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.

Speaking on Friday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that once local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins run on the same underlying blockchain infrastructure, users could swap between them through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer mechanisms.

Key takeaways

• IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-currency stablecoins could still funnel users into dollar stablecoins if both use the same blockchain rails.
• Katz said cross-stablecoin interoperability could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries like banks and currency dealers.
• He suggested this dynamic could reduce friction in capital movement, affecting how authorities monitor and manage flows.
• Katz noted adoption outcomes may differ by country, with local tokens potentially replacing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies.
• He urged regulators to enable compliant onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points to manage risks.

How shared blockchain infrastructure could enable “digital dollar” access

Katz’s core point is about infrastructure. In his remarks—delivered in a speech at the University of Cape Town—he argued that if local-currency stablecoins and dollar-backed stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain framework, the practical barriers to conversion could fall sharply.

That matters because, in decentralized finance environments, conversion does not require a single centralized issuer or intermediary to broker every transfer. Katz specifically referenced common DeFi routes: decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, and peer-to-peer swaps. Under that model, users could move between token types directly, turning what begins as local-currency issuance into an easier path to dollar exposure.

Potential implications for FX monitoring and capital-flow tools

The IMF official linked interoperability to a broader policy concern: where foreign-exchange activity happens. Katz argued that moving FX-related activity away from banks and traditional currency dealers could reduce “friction” that authorities currently rely on to monitor and manage capital flows.

In other words, the issue is not only which stablecoin a user holds, but how quickly and through what channels they can reposition into a different currency exposure. If swaps become routine onchain, regulators may find it harder to observe the flow of currency demand through traditional institutional pathways.

At the same time, Katz framed the shift as potentially reinforcing the broader category of FX-focused stablecoins. He said that local-currency stablecoins “might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins,” a statement that underscores the possibility that currency-linked token ecosystems could become more integrated over time rather than remaining siloed.

Adoption unevenness: South Africa as a case study

Katz pointed to South Africa to illustrate how adoption can diverge across token types. He said dollar-backed stablecoins have gained only limited traction there, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand.

He cautioned that it is still too early to draw definitive lessons from any single country, but he offered an explanation for why users might still prefer dollar tokens. In his view, many participants may choose dollar stablecoins due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and cross-platform or cross-border acceptance.

Those characteristics can translate into more efficient trading and easier settlement—particularly in environments where the local currency faces volatility, lower market depth, or weaker confidence in local issuances. Even if a policy objective is to reduce dependence on the dollar, market structure and user preferences can pull activity back toward the most “usable” asset in practice.

Regulatory framing: country risk differences and compliant onchain rails

Katz said risks vary by country. He suggested that in highly dollarized economies, stablecoins may largely substitute for existing dollar holdings rather than creating incremental demand for dollars. But in countries where dollar access is restricted and the economic policy framework is weaker, stablecoins could instead increase foreign-currency demand.

This distinction is important for policymakers because it affects what “success” looks like. If stablecoins mainly repackage dollars already held domestically, the macro impact might differ from a scenario in which stablecoins provide a smoother mechanism to access additional dollar exposure.

To manage these trade-offs, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory frameworks around practical access points. Specifically, he called for authorities to bring onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points within regulatory boundaries.

The policy takeaway is that banning activity is not the only route. Instead, the IMF official highlighted the need for rule-based access to onchain liquidity and conversion, so regulators can better understand flows and reduce the incentive for unregulated intermediaries.

Going forward, the key question for investors and builders is whether stablecoin issuers and blockchain platforms will prioritize interoperability across local- and dollar-denominated tokens—or isolate them through different infrastructure choices. Katz’s remarks imply that interoperability could materially change who ends up holding “digital dollars” and how quickly currency reshuffling occurs, so market participants should watch how regulators operationalize onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange controls in the jurisdictions most likely to experiment with local-currency stablecoin issuance.

Citadel21, the bitcoin publication run by pseudonymous commentator hodlonaut, also reported that its Lightning node had been swept, though it said little money was held there.

The vulnerability had already been reported to BTCPay by members of the Bitcoin Red Team — a group of developers that began pointing AI models at bitcoin codebases this week and has filed thousands of findings across hundreds of projects since.

Read More: Bitcoin developers flag 85 critical bugs in an “extremely bad” situation.

BTCPay credited Red Team members Craig Raw, Rob Hamilton, Calle and Evan Kaloudis with responsibly disclosing the issue and helping analyze it.

The group’s stated reason for publishing findings quickly was that people outside it would arrive at the same bugs, and by the time BTCPay’s public warning went out, attackers were already exploiting this one against live servers.

Meanwhile, BTCPay narrowed the scope after its initial alert, saying its standard on-chain wallets, including hot wallets generated inside BTCPay, are not affected by the credential flaw.

The exposure applies specifically to deployments using LND, and funds held inside LND’s own on-chain wallet can still be at risk because they sit under the compromised Lightning node.

BTCPay has not yet published technical details of the vulnerability, saying operators need time to patch. A full postmortem is due in the coming days.

Wyoming has disclosed an indirect investment in HYPE through Hyperliquid Strategies ($PURR) in its second-quarter 13F filing, adding another digital asset-linked position to the state’s crypto-related portfolio.

According to Blockworks analyst Shaunda Devens, Wyoming’s second-quarter 13F filing shows the state gained indirect exposure to Hyperliquid’s HYPE token through an investment in Hyperliquid Strategies ($PURR). Devens shared the filing on X, describing it as Wyoming’s latest indirect crypto investment disclosed through its public securities holdings.

The State of Wyoming just disclosed that it made an indirect investment in HYPE through Hyperliquid Strategies ($PURR) in its Q2 13F filing. pic.twitter.com/eep8NJ7hCM

— shaunda devens (@shaundadevens) August 6, 2026

Advertisement

While the filing does not indicate that Wyoming purchased HYPE tokens directly, the disclosed position gives the state indirect exposure through Hyperliquid Strategies, a publicly traded vehicle linked to the Hyperliquid ecosystem. The filing also does not disclose any direct ownership of HYPE by the state itself.

Public pension funds, treasuries and other government entities routinely disclose their U.S. equity holdings through quarterly Form 13F filings. The latest disclosure places Wyoming among the public institutions with exposure to companies connected to the digital asset market rather than only traditional crypto-related stocks.

Wyoming’s HYPE exposure comes through Hyperliquid Strategies

Hyperliquid Strategies is the investment vehicle identified in the filing. By holding shares in the company, Wyoming receives indirect exposure to HYPE instead of holding the token on its balance sheet.

Devens’ post did not specify the size of the investment or when the position was established during the second quarter. The filing likewise does not state whether the investment forms part of a larger digital asset allocation strategy or a standalone portfolio holding.

Indirect exposure through listed securities has become a common route for institutional investors seeking participation in digital assets while remaining within existing investment frameworks. Such investments differ from purchasing cryptocurrencies directly because the underlying exposure is obtained through corporate securities.

Wyoming has continued expanding its blockchain strategy

The disclosure arrives as Wyoming continues to build one of the most active blockchain policy programs among U.S. states.

In January, Wyoming launched the Frontier Stable Token (FRNT), becoming the first U.S. state to issue a government-managed dollar-backed stablecoin. The token debuted on Solana before expanding to Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon and Avalanche through cross-chain infrastructure. State officials said the reserves are managed by Franklin Templeton, held in a Wyoming-chartered trust and backed by U.S. dollars together with short-term Treasury securities.

Interest generated from those reserves is directed to Wyoming public schools, while the stablecoin was designed to reduce payment costs for state services and demonstrate blockchain-based settlement under public oversight. The project followed years of legislation that included legal recognition of decentralized autonomous organizations, the creation of Special Purpose Depository Institution charters and passage of the Stable Token Act.

Wyoming selected Solana after evaluating multiple blockchain networks before launch, while Kraken became the first Wyoming-domiciled exchange to offer the token for public purchase.

State policies have extended beyond digital assets

Alongside blockchain initiatives, Wyoming has also moved to attract computing infrastructure tied to artificial intelligence.

Governor Mark Gordon signed Executive Order 2026-03, titled “Data Centers the Wyoming Way,” in June. The order instructs state agencies involved in permitting and supporting large data center developments to consider electricity demand, water usage, environmental factors, workforce planning and the effect on residential power prices while reviewing projects.

The executive order followed rising investment in AI infrastructure across the United States and also intersects with Wyoming’s established Bitcoin mining industry, where companies have increasingly explored artificial intelligence and high-performance computing alongside cryptocurrency mining.

Several publicly traded miners, including IREN, MARA Holdings, Cipher Digital, Hut 8, HIVE Digital and TeraWulf, have announced or evaluated AI and high-performance computing businesses as they diversify revenue following the 2024 Bitcoin halving.

Wyoming remains active in crypto policy discussions

The state’s investment disclosure also comes shortly before the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, scheduled for Aug. 17-20 in Jackson Hole.

As previously reported by crypto.news, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse will join the speaker lineup alongside policymakers including SEC Chair Paul Atkins, Sen. Cynthia Lummis, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Sen. Ruben Gallego and Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould.

Industry participants expected at the event include Galaxy founder Michael Novogratz, Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson, Stellar Development Foundation CEO Denelle Dixon and Custodia Bank founder Caitlin Long.

Organizers have identified U.S. crypto regulation, Bitcoin, digital asset investment strategies, decentralized artificial intelligence and financial market structure among the planned discussion topics. Ripple also maintains academic ties with the University of Wyoming through the Ripple Blockchain Collaboratory and renewed funding under its University Blockchain Research Initiative.

Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty pushed back on the idea that cryptocurrency remains a niche dominated by young men, pointing to survey data showing 67 million Americans now hold digital assets. 

His Aug. 7 comments responded to a Wall Street Journal editorial that referred to supporters of crypto regulation as “the crypto boys.”

Alderoty argued that the label mischaracterizes a group of users. He cited Americans working in education, construction, health care and small business. His argument comes as Washington debates the CLARITY Act, giving the demographic question a dimension rather than leaving it as a dispute over industry image.

Survey data supports a broader crypto demographic

The 67 million estimate comes from the National Cryptocurrency Association’s 2026 State of Crypto Holders report, conducted with The Harris Poll. The research surveyed 10,000 U.S. crypto holders between Feb. 12 and March 3 and reported that roughly one in four American adults owns cryptocurrency, up from one in five a year earlier.

The demographic findings are nuanced than the shorthand used in Alderoty’s post. Among people who first bought crypto in 2025 or 2026, 42% identified as women, compared with 34% among earlier adopters. Meanwhile, 28% of recent purchasers were 55 or older, versus 18% who were between 18 and 24. The report found more than half of holders had household income below $150,000.

Those figures support Alderoty’s claim that crypto ownership is not confined to one age, gender or profession. However, the report measures people who already hold crypto, and its findings should not be treated as evidence that public opinion toward the industry is equally broad or favorable.

Ripple has a stake in the adoption debate

Alderoty occupies two roles relevant to the argument. He is Ripple’s chief legal officer and president of the National Cryptocurrency Association. The group launched in March 2025 with a $50 million grant from Ripple and says its mission is to improve crypto education and public understanding across the United States, as detailed in earlier coverage.

That relationship provides context for the survey’s use in Washington. The NCA says the 2026 study was conducted with The Harris Poll and carries a 95% confidence level with sampling precision of plus or minus 0.7 percentage points for the surveyed population. Still, the organization is backed by a major crypto company that has advocated for clearer federal rules.

As previously reported, Alderoty made a similar argument in July, saying 67 million holders meant Washington could no longer treat crypto users as a fringe constituency. Ripple has also joined an industry campaign urging Senate leaders to advance the CLARITY Act after months of negotiations.

CLARITY Act fight moves from demographics to policy

The legislation would create a federal digital-asset market structure and clarify how oversight is divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the measure 15-9 in May, with two Democrats joining Republicans. Updated merged text was released July 22.

Yet support has become harder to secure. Democratic lawmakers have sought stronger ethics, consumer protection, illicit-finance and market-integrity provisions. Senate Banking Committee Democrats have separately argued in an advisory that parts of the proposal could leave national-security vulnerabilities. Those criticisms remain disputed by Republican sponsors and crypto industry supporters.

The Wall Street Journal editorial that prompted Alderoty’s response also questioned stablecoin reward provisions and exemptions involving decentralized networks. Blockchain Association CEO Ji Kim rejected parts of that criticism as containing “factual and legal inaccuracies.” The competing arguments show that ownership numbers do not resolve disagreements about how the industry should be regulated.

September becomes the next test for crypto legislation

The political timetable tightened on Aug. 6, when Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed that a pre-recess CLARITY Act vote would not happen. He said the measure would be queued when lawmakers return in September, while blaming Democratic resistance for the delay.

That postponement matters because the legislation generally needs 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster before final passage can become realistic. Republicans cannot reach that threshold alone, making Democratic support necessary unless the procedural landscape changes. Ethics provisions and other unresolved sections will therefore remain central during the recess.

For Ripple and Alderoty, the 67 million figure strengthens an advocacy argument that lawmakers are regulating a large and varied constituency. It does not prove that those holders share Ripple’s preferred policy approach. The next test will come in September, when senators must decide whether negotiations have produced enough bipartisan support to move the CLARITY Act toward a floor vote.

SkyBridge Capital founder Anthony Scaramucci said on Aug. 7 that crypto adoption may reach its most important stage when consumers use blockchain infrastructure without knowing it is there. 

Responding to an X user who argued ordinary people would never use crypto, Scaramucci wrote that they “will soon use crypto/blockchain without even realizing it.”

The claim is a forecast, not evidence that mass adoption has already arrived. Still, current payment and tokenization data provide examples of the model he describes: blockchain increasingly operates behind familiar interfaces while users interact with cards, wallets, brokerages and payment applications rather than raw addresses, gas fees or network settings.

Stablecoins already show how invisible crypto could work

Stablecoins provide the clearest existing test. Visa research using adjusted blockchain data estimated $10.2 trillion in stablecoin transaction volume over the previous 12 months, after filtering activity such as bots and internal exchange movements. Visa said adjusted volume was up 63% year over year, showing that blockchain settlement has expanded beyond speculative trading.

The Federal Reserve has also documented the trend. In an April note, researchers said stablecoin market capitalization grew about 50% during 2025, while transaction volume and decentralized finance use increased. They identified accelerating retail adoption through digital wallet partnerships as one development reshaping the sector, while warning that broader use could create new financial stability risks.

As crypto.news reported in its stablecoin payment expansion, Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, PayPal and other established firms are adding blockchain settlement without requiring customers to understand the underlying rails. That model closely matches Scaramucci’s argument: users may choose a card, app or dollar balance while blockchain infrastructure handles settlement behind the interface.

Advertisement

Tokenized assets are moving toward familiar interfaces

Tokenization offers another example. Rather than asking consumers to learn decentralized finance first, platforms are increasingly placing blockchain representations of traditional securities inside products that resemble brokerage or wallet applications. Tokenized stock transfers rose 105% over one month to $8.41 billion in July, according to RWA.xyz data cited in related tokenization coverage.

The shift is also reaching traditional market infrastructure. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation has been testing tokenized securities, while crypto platforms have expanded access to tokenized equities and exchange traded funds. In tokenized equities coverage, products tied to familiar stocks increasingly appear alongside conventional digital assets, reducing the distinction visible to users.

Scaramucci ties adoption to simpler user experiences

Scaramucci’s position reflects a longstanding technology pattern: infrastructure becomes more widely useful when consumers no longer need to understand its mechanics. Internet users routinely rely on protocols, cloud services and encrypted connections without choosing technical standards for each interaction. He expects blockchain systems to follow a similar path.

That view does not mean every crypto product will disappear from view. Bitcoin, self-custody wallets and decentralized applications can still require users to interact directly with digital assets. Instead, the “invisible” thesis applies most clearly to services where blockchain functions as settlement, recordkeeping or transfer infrastructure beneath a conventional customer experience.

Advertisement

Scaramucci has also linked adoption to clearer U.S. rules. In July, he described the CLARITY Act as imperfect but “ten times better” than the regulatory status quo and urged stakeholders to accept compromise. The Senate has since delayed a floor vote until September, leaving broader market structure legislation unresolved.

Regulation could decide how quickly adoption disappears backstage

The U.S. already has one major piece of federal crypto legislation in place. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, created a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. Federal Reserve research notes that agencies are still implementing core rules, including reserve transparency, redemption rights and customer identification requirements for eligible issuers.

Those rules matter to Scaramucci’s thesis because invisible infrastructure still requires visible accountability. If consumers do not know which blockchain settles a payment, responsibility shifts toward issuers, wallets, exchanges, banks and payment companies to manage custody, fraud, disclosures and compliance correctly.

There is also a scale gap between crypto infrastructure and everyday consumer finance. Federal Reserve payments data show U.S. consumers and businesses made 236.6 billion noncash payments in 2024, with cards representing more than three quarters by number. Stablecoins are growing quickly, but much blockchain volume still reflects trading, treasury movements and settlement rather than retail purchases.

Advertisement

Domestic-currency stablecoins intended to curb reliance on dollar-backed tokens could instead make it easier for users to move funds into digital dollars, according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.

On Friday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that once local and dollar stablecoins operate on the same blockchain infrastructure, users can convert between them through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools or peer-to-peer swaps. 

In a speech at the University of Cape Town, Katz said the shift could move foreign exchange activity away from banks and currency dealers, reducing the friction that gives authorities tools to monitor and manage capital flows. 

“In this way, local-currency stablecoins might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins,” he said.

Katz pointed to South Africa, where dollar-backed stablecoins have gained limited traction but rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand. 

While it was too early to draw firm conclusions, he said many users may favor dollar tokens because of their liquidity, network effects and acceptance across platforms and borders. 

Katz said the risks vary by country. Stablecoins may largely replace existing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies but could increase foreign-currency demand in countries where access to dollars is restricted and economic frameworks are weak. 

He urged authorities to bring onramps, offramps and onchain exchange points within regulatory frameworks. 

Related: Dollar stablecoins could improve FX access but amplify currency runs: IMF

Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently.

Efforts to promote stablecoins pegged to local currencies in order to reduce dependence on dollar-backed tokens may end up doing something quite different: making it easier for users to switch into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.

In remarks delivered at the University of Cape Town, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that if local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain infrastructure, conversion between the two could become routine through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer swaps. The implication, he suggested, is that stablecoin design aimed at curbing dollar exposure could inadvertently improve access to FX stablecoins.

Key takeaways

• IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-coin stablecoins could also facilitate conversion into dollar-backed tokens if both run on shared blockchain infrastructure.
• Once interoperability is built, Katz said users may be able to exchange between stablecoin types via decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or P2P swaps.
• He argued that this could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries such as banks and currency dealers.
• Katz highlighted that outcomes are likely to differ by country, depending on dollarization levels, market access, and economic institutions.
• He urged regulators to ensure onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points are integrated within regulatory frameworks.

Why interoperability changes the stablecoin story

The IMF official’s central point is not merely about what stablecoins are pegged to, but about how easily they can be moved and swapped once they share technical rails. Katz argued that if local and dollar stablecoins “operate on the same blockchain infrastructure,” users would have multiple pathways to convert between them—effectively reducing the practical difference between holding a rand-linked or a dollar-linked token.

This matters because stablecoin adoption is often shaped by more than the peg. According to Katz, even when local-currency tokens are available, many users may still prefer dollar tokens due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and acceptance across platforms and borders. In other words, the attractiveness of dollar stablecoins may be structurally reinforced by where activity and market depth already exist.

When those advantages are paired with interoperability, the “local-currency” intention can be diluted: users may treat pegged tokens as interchangeable short cuts rather than as separate ecosystems.

Potential impact on FX markets and capital-flow monitoring

Katz also framed the issue from the perspective of how FX activity and capital flows are handled. He said that routing conversion and movement through decentralized venues could move foreign-exchange activity away from banks and currency dealers.

The policy consequence, in his view, is that the usual frictions—those gaps that authorities can sometimes leverage to observe, measure, and manage capital flows—may be reduced. If stablecoin trading and exchange become more direct and automated, regulators may find it harder to rely on the traditional chokepoints that exist in bank-led FX systems.

At the same time, Katz argued that the direction of travel could be consistent with broader adoption dynamics: “In this way, local-currency stablecoins might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins.” That is a key tension running through his remarks—efforts meant to localize currency exposure could end up making FX stablecoins more accessible.

What the IMF official cited from South Africa

Katz pointed to South Africa as an example where dollar-backed stablecoins have seen limited traction, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand. He noted that it was “too early” to draw firm conclusions, but the pattern underscores the possibility that local-pegged products have struggled to achieve the same pull as dollar-denominated alternatives.

For investors and market participants, the takeaway is straightforward: liquidity and ecosystem maturity can matter as much as the peg itself. If dollar stablecoins already circulate across a wider set of venues and users, interoperability could channel demand toward the assets that offer the easiest conversion and deepest markets.

Country-by-country risks: dollarization versus restricted access

While Katz did not present a one-size-fits-all forecast, he argued that the risks vary across countries. He suggested that stablecoins could largely replace existing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies—meaning the shift would be more about substitution of what people already hold.

In contrast, he warned that in countries where access to dollars is restricted and economic frameworks are weaker, stablecoins could increase foreign-currency demand. In those settings, the accessibility gains from onchain conversion may become economically consequential, potentially shifting how households and businesses seek to hedge or transact.

That distinction is important for policymakers who might otherwise assume that “local-currency stablecoins” automatically reduce cross-border currency pressures. Katz’s framing implies that the broader macro effect depends on whether stablecoin adoption replaces existing behavior or changes the feasibility of accessing foreign currency in the first place.

Regulators may need onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points

Rather than advocating for a simplistic approval or prohibition approach, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory coverage around the full stablecoin lifecycle—specifically onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points. His comments imply that supervision cannot stop at issuing rules for pegged tokens; it also has to address where conversions happen and how users enter and exit stablecoin positions.

From a market-structure standpoint, this is a crucial policy challenge. If decentralized exchanges and liquidity pools become the primary route for swapping between stablecoin types, regulation that only targets centralized issuers may miss the most active venues for price discovery and asset conversion.

What to watch next is whether jurisdictions pursuing local-currency stablecoins also take interoperability and exchange routing seriously in their regulatory designs. If local and dollar stablecoins become technically unified, Katz’s warning suggests demand may flow toward the tokens with the deepest liquidity and widest acceptance—potentially changing both the mechanics of FX access and the practical tools available to monitor cross-border financial activity.