Basel Power Struggle Deepens With Stablecoin Momentum Forcing Rapid Rethink

Global Crypto Capital Rules Face Mounting Pressure

A widening policy split over how banks handle crypto exposure is accelerating calls for overhaul. Erik Thedéen, Governor of the Sveriges Riksbank and Chair of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, shared on Nov. 19 in an interview with the Financial Times that global capital rules for crypto must be reworked amid diverging regulatory positions.

“What has happened has been fairly dramatic,” he stated, elaborating:

This very strong increase in stablecoins and how much assets are in that system calls for a different approach.

The Swedish central banker expanded on the shift in market structure. “The focus back then was very much on the bitcoins of this world,” he explained, emphasizing: “Now of course everyone is talking about stablecoins. Permissionless ledgers: are these as risky as we thought? Or is there an argument we can look at this in a different way? We need to start analysing. But we need to be fairly quick on it.”

His remarks coincide with the U.S. Federal Reserve rejecting Basel’s 1,250% risk weight for permissionless- blockchain assets while the Bank of England moved away from the framework, and the EU adopted only partial elements. Those decisions underscore an increasingly fragmented landscape as the stablecoin market approaches $300 billion and becomes more integrated across payments and funding flows.

Read more: Basel Study Shows World’s Largest Banks Are Exposed to $9 Billion in Crypto Assets

Thedéen acknowledged that aligning regulators will be difficult as banks warn that the current capital treatment would deter them from offering crypto custody, trading support and tokenized-asset services. Financial groups argue such barriers could shift digital-asset activity into less-regulated venues, reducing transparency and weakening supervision. Pro- crypto analysts, however, contend that integrating stablecoins and tokenized assets into bank-regulated balance-sheet structures could strengthen liquidity management, enhance disclosure standards and expand institutional participation, provided capital charges are calibrated rather than prohibitive.

FAQ ⏰

• Why are global regulators split on crypto capital rules?
  Regulators are diverging because the rapid rise of stablecoins and differing views on permissionless- blockchain risk have created conflicting national approaches.
• What triggered renewed debate over stablecoin oversight?
  The accelerating growth of the stablecoin market has intensified pressure to update outdated banking frameworks.
• How are U.S. and European authorities treating permissionless- blockchain assets?
  The U.S. Federal Reserve rejected Basel’s 1,250% risk weight while the EU and UK adopted partial or alternative approaches.
• Why do banks oppose the current capital treatment for crypto?
  Banks argue the requirements are so restrictive that they could block them from providing custody, trading, and tokenized-asset services, pushing activity into less-regulated venues.