Connect with us

Crypto World

Why banks are moving beyond single-provider stablecoin payment rails

Published

on

Why banks are moving beyond single-provider stablecoin payment rails

Latest developments: Infrastructure providers are increasingly building network-based stablecoin payment systems instead of single-provider rails, said Borderless CEO, Kevin Lehtiniitty, in an interview on CoinDesk’s Markets Outlook.

  • Borderless recently partnered with wallet infrastructure provider Dfns to launch an institutional stablecoin off-ramp aimed at banks, fintechs and enterprises.
  • The system routes stablecoin payouts through multiple liquidity providers across global markets.
  • The goal is to convert stablecoins into local fiat currencies more reliably while avoiding dependence on a single vendor.

Why it matters: Early enterprise stablecoin experiments often relied on bundled providers that handled the entire stack.

  • These “black box” solutions packaged wallets, compliance tools and liquidity access into a single product.
  • That model helped institutions run quick proof-of-concept pilots without rebuilding their payments infrastructure.
  • But it also created vendor lock-in and introduced operational risk if a single provider experienced downtime.

The shift to “Stablecoin 2.0”: Institutions are now moving toward modular infrastructure where they control more of the stack internally.

  • Large enterprises are selecting separate best-in-class tools for compliance, custody wallets and liquidity access.
  • This approach mirrors how traditional financial infrastructure is built across multiple vendors.
  • Lehtiniitty describes this shift as the transition from “Stablecoin 1.0” pilots to “Stablecoin 2.0” production systems.

How the network model works: Multi-provider networks help institutions manage regulatory uncertainty and improve pricing.

  • No single company is licensed or regulated in every country, making global payout coverage difficult with one partner.
  • A network structure lets institutions connect to multiple liquidity providers within the same corridor.
  • Payments can automatically reroute if a provider experiences regulatory issues, banking disruptions or technical outages.

What comes next: Stablecoins may increasingly operate behind the scenes as financial infrastructure.

  • Enterprises are exploring the technology for cross-border payments, especially in emerging market corridors.
  • Stablecoins can also reduce the need for costly pre-funded accounts used in traditional remittance systems.
  • Over time, the technology may become embedded in payment systems rather than marketed as a standalone product.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

DeFi lending platform Aave sees $27 million liquidations after wstETH price glitch

Published

on

(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)

About $27 million was liquidated on the decentralized lending platform Aave over the last 24 hours, in what some market participants say may have been caused by a temporary pricing issue involving the token wstETH.

Blockchain data flagged by risk-management firm Chaos Labs shows a spike in liquidations in the past 24 hours. Some observers believe the event may have been linked to a price update in an oracle system that Aave uses to determine the value of collateral.

(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)
(AAVE liquidations over last 24 hours/ Chaos Labs)

Oracles are services that feed price data from the outside world into blockchain applications. Lending protocols like Aave rely on them to decide when a borrower’s collateral is no longer sufficient to back their loan — at which point the position can be liquidated.

While such scenarios are rare, most recently, a price-oracle setup misconfigured by DeFi lender Moonwell briefly valued Coinbase Wrapped ETH (cbETH) at about $1 instead of roughly $2,200, leaving the protocol with nearly $1.8 million in bad debt.

In Aave’s case, some say the issue may have involved wstETH, a token issued by Lido that represents staked ether. Because it accrues staking rewards over time, one wstETH is typically worth slightly more than one ETH.

Advertisement

According to a post from LTV Protocol on X, at the time of the liquidations, Aave’s oracle appeared to value wstETH at roughly 1.19 ETH, while the broader market valued it closer to 1.23 ETH.

Volume remained relatively low for wstETH trading pairs, with just $10 million being traded over the past 24 hours, so it is unlikely any astute traders capitalized on the pricing mismatch before it snapped back.

Aave spokesperson didn’t reply to CoinDesk’s request for comments.

(24-hour trading volume of wstETH/ CoinMarketCap)
(24-hour trading volume of wstETH/ CoinMarketCap)

Earlier in the day, risk firm LlamaRisk briefly published a post on the AAVE forum, attributing the liquidations to an issue with Chaos Labs’ risk oracle, before deleting it.

Chaos Labs later said the underlying oracle itself reported the correct market values, and that the liquidations were instead triggered by a configuration issue in the protocol’s CAPO risk oracle, which is designed to place limits on how quickly the value of yield-bearing tokens such as wstETH can increase.

Advertisement

According to Chaos Labs, the incident was caused by a mismatch between stale parameters stored in a smart contract, including a reference exchange rate and its associated timestamp. Because those values were not updated in sync, the CAPO system temporarily calculated a maximum allowed exchange rate that was lower than the real market value of wstETH.

That effectively caused the protocol to treat wstETH as about 2.85% less valuable than it actually was, pushing some borrowing positions below their safety thresholds, triggering liquidations.

Chaos Labs said the protocol incurred no bad debt, though liquidators — traders or bots that repay risky loans in exchange for discounted collateral — captured roughly 499 ETH in liquidation bonuses and profits from the temporary price discrepancy.

A Lido contributor told CoinDesk, “We are aware of the liquidations due to an incorrect wstETH to USD price reported by this oracle mechanism. The cause has nothing to do with wstETH itself, how it works or the Lido protocol which continue to operate normally.”

Advertisement

Oliver Knight contributed reporting to this story.

Read more: Aave governance rift deepens as major governance group exits $26 billion DeFi protocol

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Kalshi Suffers Court Loss in Ohio over Sports Betting Lawsuit

Published

on

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets

The prediction markets platform argued for an injunction against Ohio authorities, claiming that federal commodities laws superseded state laws on sport event contracts.

An Ohio federal court has denied a motion filed by prediction markets platform Kalshi for a preliminary injunction against Ohio state authorities over allegations that the company was operating in violation of gambling laws.

In an order filed Monday, US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Chief Judge Sarah Morrison denied Kalshi’s request for an injunction that would have blocked the Ohio Casino Control Commission and state attorney general from regulating contracts on the platform, specifically for sports betting.

Advertisement

According to the judge, Kalshi had failed to show that the sports event contracts available on the platform were subject to the “exclusive jurisdiction” of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

“Even if this Court were to find that sports-event contracts are swaps subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction, Kalshi has not shown that the [Commodity Exchange Act, or CEA] would necessarily preempt Ohio’s sports gambling laws,” said the opinion and order, adding:

“Kalshi argues that Ohio’s sports gambling laws are field and conflict preempted by the CEA when it comes to sports-event contracts traded on its exchange […] Kalshi fails to establish that Congress intended the CEA to preempt state laws on sports gambling.”

Law, CFTC, Court, Kalshi, Prediction Markets
Source: Courtlistener

The denial pushed back against the narrative from CFTC Chair Michael Selig, who said in February that the federal regulator had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and threatened lawsuits against any authority claiming otherwise. Kalshi and prediction platforms face lawsuits in other US states over similar allegations involving unlicensed sports betting.

“This Court does not endeavor to explain why the CFTC has not exercised its authority […] with respect to the sports-event contracts,” said the Monday filing in Ohio. “But the agency’s inaction is not proof that the sports-event contracts are regulated by or permissible under the CEA—and the Court has concluded they are not.”

Related: CFTC chair backs blockchain-based prediction markets as ‘truth machines’

Advertisement

In a statement to Cointelegraph, a Kalshi spokesperson said that the company “respectfully disagree[d] with the Court’s decision, which splits from a decision from a federal court in Tennessee just a few weeks ago, and will promptly seek an appeal.”

CFTC guidance on prediction markets could be looming

Last week, Selig said that the federal regulator was working to provide guidance regarding prediction markets “in the very near future.” The CFTC chair is the sole Senate-confirmed commissioner in a panel normally consisting of five people.

Magazine: The debate over Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is over: Benjamin Cowen

Advertisement