[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"article-bis-stablecoin-usable-buffers-regulation-en":3,"article-related-bis-stablecoin-usable-buffers-regulation-en":30,"series-research-99349700-bdd6-4a02-9354-17ff20598452":82},{"id":4,"slug":5,"title":6,"content":7,"summary":8,"source":9,"source_url":10,"author":11,"image_url":12,"cover_image":12,"category":13,"language":14,"translated_content":11,"related_article_id":15,"keywords":16,"key_takeaways":22,"views":26,"created_at":27,"published_at":28,"topic_cluster_id":29},"99349700-bdd6-4a02-9354-17ff20598452","bis-stablecoin-usable-buffers-regulation-en","BIS turns stablecoin rules into usable buffers","\u003Cp data-speakable=\"summary\">A BIS model shows how usable capital and liquidity thresholds can make \u003Ca href=\"\u002Ftag\u002Fstablecoins\">stablecoins\u003C\u002Fa> safer.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I've been following stablecoin regulation for a while, and honestly, the part that keeps bugging me is how often people talk about reserves like they're all the same thing. They're not. Cash is cash. Short-dated Treasuries are not cash when everyone wants out at once. And capital is its own beast entirely. A lot of the public debate treats those as interchangeable safety knobs, which is fine until you actually model redemption stress and watch the issuer do the least helpful thing possible: reach for yield, hold too little cash, and hope the door doesn't get jammed.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That is why I paid attention when I read the BIS working paper \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bis.org\u002Fpubl\u002Fwork1355.htm\">Making stablecoins stable(r): can regulation help?\u003C\u002Fa> by Tirupam Goel, Ulf Lewrick, and Isha Agarwal. It is not a policy slogan. It is a model of how a stablecoin issuer chooses capital, cash, and bonds under persistent flows, and what happens when regulators impose capital and liquidity thresholds. The paper is blunt about the trade-off: the wrong rule can make things worse, and the right one can change issuer behavior before stress hits.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What I like here is that the authors do not pretend regulation is magic. They separate the two risk channels and then ask which tool hits which channel. That is the kind of framing I wish more crypto policy discussions used instead of tossing around vague “reserve quality” language and calling it a day.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Why stablecoin reserves fail in boring, predictable ways\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“Absent regulation, stablecoin issuers hold little capital and favour interest-bearing bonds over cash.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>What this actually means is simple: if you let an issuer optimize for return, it will usually prefer bonds over idle cash, because bonds earn something and cash mostly sits there. That sounds rational until redemptions spike. Then the issuer has to sell bonds quickly, often at a discount, which eats into capital and can trigger more problems for coin-holders.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780737504361-by41.png\" alt=\"BIS turns stablecoin rules into usable buffers\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>The BIS paper frames this as a liquidity transformation problem. Stablecoins are demandable liabilities, but the backing portfolio is a mix of cash and less-liquid assets. That mismatch creates two risks at once: default risk to holders and spillovers to money markets when the issuer dumps bonds into thin markets. I think this is the useful bit because it stops the conversation from being “are reserves good enough?” and turns it into “what happens when the reserve mix meets stress?”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I ran into this exact mental trap when I first looked at stablecoin reserve disclosures. A portfolio heavy in Treasuries can look conservative on paper, especially if you compare it to the average crypto balance sheet. But if the issuer has to sell into a redemption wave, “safe” can become “forced seller” very quickly. That is the whole game here.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you are designing a stablecoin risk review, do not just ask whether reserves exist. Ask three separate questions: how much can be liquidated immediately, how much loss can the issuer absorb without breaking the peg, and what happens if the issuer has to sell in size. If you collapse those into one bucket, you will miss the failure mode.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Measure liquidity as usable cash, not just “high-quality assets.”\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Measure capital as loss-absorbing equity, not a marketing label.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Stress both against redemption spikes, not average-day operations.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Why “usable buffers” matter more than hard floors\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“Liquidity and capital thresholds lower these risks when designed as usable buffers.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the part of the paper that actually matters to policy design. The authors are not saying “set a minimum and walk away.” They argue that thresholds work best when they can be breached in stress, because the breach itself changes issuer incentives. If a threshold triggers extra redemptions or other discipline before the issuer has exhausted all flexibility, it pushes the issuer to build buffers during normal times.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That sounds weird at first. Most of us are trained to think of a threshold as a hard line: stay above it or get punished. But in this model, a strict minimum can backfire. If the issuer must stay above the line at all costs, it may sell bonds too early, which can create the very fire-sale losses the rule was supposed to prevent. So the paper prefers “usable buffers” over rigid floors.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve seen this same mistake in product and infra work. Teams set a hard limit, then discover the system starts behaving badly right before the limit because everyone is optimizing to avoid crossing it. Finance does the same thing. If the rule is too brittle, the issuer will game timing, not improve resilience.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you are writing policy, compliance guidance, or even an internal risk framework, think in terms of buffer behavior under stress. A good rule should change behavior before the cliff edge, not create a cliff edge. That means you need calibration, not just a number pulled from a spreadsheet and blessed by committee.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>Prefer thresholds that can guide behavior in normal times.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Test whether the rule forces premature asset sales.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Check whether the rule reduces both redemption risk and market spillovers.\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Ch2>Capital and liquidity do not hit the balance sheet the same way\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“While the liquidity threshold only raises cash holdings, the capital threshold increases both capital and cash.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>That sentence is doing a lot of work. The liquidity threshold pushes the issuer toward more cash. The capital threshold pushes the issuer toward more capital and more cash. In other words, these are not duplicates. They affect the issuer through different channels even if the end goal is similar: less fragility.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cfigure class=\"my-6\">\u003Cimg src=\"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780737498658-4c5n.png\" alt=\"BIS turns stablecoin rules into usable buffers\" class=\"rounded-xl w-full\" loading=\"lazy\" \u002F>\u003C\u002Ffigure>\n\u003Cp>What this actually means is that capital is not just a cushion for losses. It also changes how the issuer chooses the rest of the portfolio. If the issuer has to hold more equity, it appears to become more conservative overall, which raises cash too. Liquidity rules, by contrast, mostly change the cash share directly.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is where I think a lot of regulatory debates get lazy. People ask whether capital or liquidity is “better,” as if the answer should be one or the other. The BIS paper is more practical than that. It says the tools are substitutes for reducing each individual risk, but they are complements if regulators care about both default risk and spillovers together. That is a much more useful statement.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I like that distinction because it mirrors what happens in real systems: one control can reduce the obvious failure mode, but a different control may be needed to reduce the mess that failure creates elsewhere. If you only optimize for issuer survival, you may still leave market structure exposed.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: split your analysis into issuer solvency and market impact. Then map each tool to the channel it actually changes. If a capital rule also changes cash holdings, note that. If a liquidity rule leaves the capital structure untouched, note that too. Don’t assume one knob covers everything.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Why strict minimums can be worse than flexible thresholds\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“By contrast, imposing strict minimum requirements can backfire by forcing premature bond sales and raising default risk.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the paper’s strongest warning, and I think it deserves to be said plainly: a hard minimum can force the issuer to sell assets before it wants to, which can lock in losses and make the peg less stable. That is the opposite of what regulators want.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The reason is mechanical. If a stablecoin issuer is near the minimum and redemptions start, it has to defend the requirement. The easiest way to do that may be to dump bonds. But if the market is thin, those sales move prices. Lower prices mean larger losses. Larger losses mean less capital. Less capital means more danger to coin-holders. You can see the spiral.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>This is where the BIS paper feels refreshingly unsentimental. It does not claim that regulation is automatically stabilizing. It says the design choice matters. I appreciate that because I’ve seen too many “just require more reserves” arguments that ignore the path by which a rule gets enforced.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: when you draft or evaluate a requirement, model the enforcement path, not just the target level. Ask what the issuer does on day one after a shock. If the answer is “sell bonds into a stressed market,” then your minimum may be too rigid.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>In practice, that means regulators should think about thresholds as operating rules, not just compliance badges. The difference is subtle but important. A compliance badge says “be above X.” An operating rule says “when you get near X, what behavior do you want to trigger?”\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The two-risk problem is why one tool is not enough\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“Both thresholds mitigate default and spillover risks, suggesting they are substitutes. However, they are complements for regulators targeting both risks.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is the core policy takeaway. If your only objective is to reduce default risk, either capital or liquidity thresholds can help. If your only objective is to reduce spillovers, either can help there too. But if you want to hit both risks together, you need to think about the pair.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>That is the part that feels most realistic to me. Stablecoin regulation is not just about protecting holders from a failed peg. It is also about making sure the issuer does not become a forced seller in a market that matters to everyone else. Those are related, but not identical, failure modes.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The paper goes further and says the authors calibrate a two-way mapping between threshold pairs and chosen risk targets. In plain English, they build a way to translate “I want this much risk reduction” into “here is the capital-liquidity combination that gets you there,” and vice versa. That is the kind of bridge policymakers can actually use.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I’ve spent enough time around risk frameworks to know that people love targets and hate translation. Everyone wants to say “lower risk,” but then they freeze when asked what rule actually gets them there. This paper tries to close that gap.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you are a policymaker or advisor, stop asking whether a capital rule or liquidity rule is universally superior. Instead, define the two risks you care about, then calibrate the pair of thresholds against those targets. If you are an issuer, do the same exercise internally so you know which reserve mix is being optimized for which objective.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>What the model says about stablecoin governance in practice\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cblockquote>“We derive and calibrate a two-way mapping that links threshold pairs to chosen regulatory risk targets and vice versa.”\u003C\u002Fblockquote>\u003Cp>This is where the paper moves from theory into something more operational. The authors use stablecoin flows and US Treasury market depth to connect the model to actual market conditions. That matters because a reserve rule without market calibration is just wishful thinking with footnotes.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>What this actually means is that regulators do not have to guess blindly. They can start with a risk target, use the mapping, and infer the threshold combination that would support it. Or they can start with a proposed threshold pair and infer the implied risk reduction. That is a much cleaner way to debate policy than arguing in slogans.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>I also think this is a useful reminder for anyone building stablecoin infrastructure. Governance is not only about who can freeze what or how fast attestations arrive. It is also about how the reserve rule changes behavior under stress. If the rule nudges the issuer toward more cash in normal times, that is a governance choice, not just a balance sheet detail.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>How to apply it: if you are building a stablecoin policy memo, structure it around three questions.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cul>\u003Cli>What failure are we trying to reduce: issuer default, market spillovers, or both?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Which threshold changes cash, which changes capital, and which changes both?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003Cli>Does the rule create usable buffers or a brittle minimum?\u003C\u002Fli>\u003C\u002Ful>\u003Cp>That framing forces the conversation to stay concrete. It also prevents the usual hand-waving where people say “more reserves” without saying which reserves, for which risk, and with what enforcement logic.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>The template you can copy\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cpre>\u003Ccode># Stablecoin reserve rule memo template\n\n## Objective\nState the primary risk target:\n- [ ] Reduce issuer default risk\n- [ ] Reduce money-market spillovers\n- [ ] Reduce both\n\n## Risk channel map\n- Cash holdings affect: [default risk \u002F spillovers \u002F both]\n- Capital holdings affect: [default risk \u002F spillovers \u002F both]\n- Bond holdings affect: [default risk \u002F spillovers \u002F both]\n\n## Rule design choice\nChoose one:\n- Usable buffer threshold: can be breached in stress, but changes issuer behavior early\n- Strict minimum requirement: hard floor that must not be crossed\n\n## Recommended threshold pair\n- Liquidity threshold: ______\n- Capital threshold: ______\n- Rationale: explain how each threshold changes issuer incentives\n\n## Stress behavior test\nAnswer these before approving the rule:\n1. What does the issuer sell first under redemption pressure?\n2. Does the rule force premature bond sales?\n3. Does the rule raise cash holdings in normal times?\n4. Does the rule raise capital holdings in normal times?\n5. Does the rule reduce both default risk and spillover risk?\n\n## Calibration note\nIf possible, translate the target into a threshold pair using market depth and redemption-flow assumptions.\nIf not, state the assumptions explicitly and show the sensitivity range.\n\n## Decision language\nUse this wording only if it is true:\n- \"This rule is intended to create usable buffers, not a brittle cliff.\"\n- \"The threshold is designed to change issuer behavior before stress becomes a fire sale.\"\n- \"The policy addresses issuer solvency and market spillovers as separate risks.\"\n\n## Reviewer checklist\n- [ ] We separated capital from liquidity\n- [ ] We tested strict minimums for fire-sale risk\n- [ ] We explained why the chosen mix fits the target risk profile\n- [ ] We documented what happens during redemption stress\n- [ ] We avoided treating all reserves as interchangeable\n\u003C\u002Fcode>\u003C\u002Fpre>\u003Cp>If I were turning this paper into an internal policy note, I would use that template almost exactly. It keeps the conversation honest and stops everyone from hiding behind generic reserve language.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>And if you're building a stablecoin risk framework, this is the part to steal: define the risk, map the mechanism, choose usable buffers over hard cliffs unless you can prove the cliff won't trigger fire sales, then calibrate the pair instead of worshipping a single ratio.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Source attribution: this breakdown is based on the BIS working paper \u003Ca href=\"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bis.org\u002Fpubl\u002Fwork1355.htm\">Making stablecoins stable(r): can regulation help?\u003C\u002Fa> by Tirupam Goel, Ulf Lewrick, and Isha Agarwal. The framing, paraphrase, and template here are my own synthesis of that paper, not a reproduction of the BIS text.\u003C\u002Fp>","A BIS model shows how capital and liquidity thresholds can push stablecoin issuers toward safer buffers without forcing bad fire sales.","www.bis.org","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.bis.org\u002Fpubl\u002Fwork1355.htm",null,"https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780737504361-by41.png","research","en","33d21f7f-481d-43d9-9a1c-a2e5badcd84b",[17,18,19,20,21],"stablecoins","capital regulation","liquidity regulation","financial stability","BIS",[23,24,25],"Stablecoin risk is a portfolio design problem, not just a reserve disclosure problem.","Usable buffers can be safer than strict minimums because they avoid forced fire sales.","Capital and liquidity rules affect issuer behavior differently and should be calibrated together.",0,"2026-06-06T09:17:56.826856+00:00","2026-06-06T09:17:56.818+00:00","3103988e-c4fe-45e3-98ab-846500c9d507",{"tags":31,"relatedLang":41,"relatedPosts":45},[32,34,36,38,40],{"name":20,"slug":33},"financial-stability",{"name":21,"slug":35},"bis",{"name":18,"slug":37},"capital-regulation",{"name":19,"slug":39},"liquidity-regulation",{"name":17,"slug":17},{"id":15,"slug":42,"title":43,"language":44},"bis-stablecoin-usable-buffers-regulation-zh","BIS 把穩定幣規則變成可用緩衝","zh",[46,52,58,64,70,76],{"id":47,"slug":48,"title":49,"cover_image":50,"image_url":50,"created_at":51,"category":13},"5cf69bca-6c4c-46e0-a4b7-b0a59835c548","prevent-catastrophic-forgetting-llm-fine-tuning-en","How to Prevent Catastrophic Forgetting in LLM Fine-Tuning","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780730282480-iwp2.png","2026-06-06T07:17:32.623791+00:00",{"id":53,"slug":54,"title":55,"cover_image":56,"image_url":56,"created_at":57,"category":13},"092a851e-da2c-45f9-a550-d9db620ebb1b","code2lora-repo-specific-adapters-code-models-en","Code2LoRA generates repo-specific adapters","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780727590988-xe8t.png","2026-06-06T06:32:46.445714+00:00",{"id":59,"slug":60,"title":61,"cover_image":62,"image_url":62,"created_at":63,"category":13},"cb4d09b6-0301-417e-8b84-11cd25ff4ae1","handoff-humanoid-control-planner-friendly-en","HANDOFF makes humanoid control more planner-friendly","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780726685246-4vq8.png","2026-06-06T06:17:35.816558+00:00",{"id":65,"slug":66,"title":67,"cover_image":68,"image_url":68,"created_at":69,"category":13},"c4d4f32b-39fc-42bf-94b0-1dd531c4973f","taillor-protects-key-directions-continual-finetuning-en","TailLoR protects key directions in continual finetuning","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780725795119-uimo.png","2026-06-06T06:02:30.230937+00:00",{"id":71,"slug":72,"title":73,"cover_image":74,"image_url":74,"created_at":75,"category":13},"1848b0d4-2c8a-4c24-928b-46f0ddb4dbb2","why-benchmark-leaderboards-are-wrong-about-model-logic-en","Why benchmark leaderboards are wrong about model logic","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780673573292-rj31.png","2026-06-05T15:32:23.511842+00:00",{"id":77,"slug":78,"title":79,"cover_image":80,"image_url":80,"created_at":81,"category":13},"aadc9843-d668-4507-8c2b-5eea7f352bb6","why-prompt-engineering-is-wrong-about-2026-en","Why Prompt Engineering Is Wrong About 2026","https:\u002F\u002Fxxdpdyhzhpamafnrdkyq.supabase.co\u002Fstorage\u002Fv1\u002Fobject\u002Fpublic\u002Fcovers\u002Finline-1780661867824-506z.png","2026-06-05T12:17:20.457075+00:00",[83,88,93,98,103,108,113,118,123,128],{"id":84,"slug":85,"title":86,"created_at":87},"a2715e72-1fe8-41b3-abb1-d0cf1f710189","ai-predictions-2026-big-changes-en","AI Predictions for 2026: Brace for Big Changes","2026-03-26T01:25:07.788356+00:00",{"id":89,"slug":90,"title":91,"created_at":92},"8404bd7b-4c2f-4109-9ec4-baf29d88af2b","ml-papers-of-the-week-github-research-desk-en","ML Papers of the Week Turns GitHub Into a Research Desk","2026-03-27T01:11:39.480259+00:00",{"id":94,"slug":95,"title":96,"created_at":97},"87897a94-8065-4464-a016-1f23e89e17cc","ai-ml-conferences-to-watch-in-2026-en","AI\u002FML Conferences to Watch in 2026","2026-03-27T01:51:54.184108+00:00",{"id":99,"slug":100,"title":101,"created_at":102},"6f1987cf-25f3-47a4-b3e6-db0997695be8","openclaw-agents-manipulated-self-sabotage-en","OpenClaw Agents Can Be Manipulated Into Failure","2026-03-28T03:03:18.899465+00:00",{"id":104,"slug":105,"title":106,"created_at":107},"a53571ad-735a-4178-9f93-cb09b699d99c","vega-driving-language-instructions-en","Vega: Driving with Natural Language Instructions","2026-03-28T14:54:04.698882+00:00",{"id":109,"slug":110,"title":111,"created_at":112},"a34581d6-f36e-46da-88bb-582fb3e7425c","personalizing-autonomous-driving-styles-en","Drive My Way: Personalizing Autonomous Driving Styles","2026-03-28T14:54:26.148181+00:00",{"id":114,"slug":115,"title":116,"created_at":117},"2bc1ad7f-26ce-4f02-9885-803b35fd229d","training-knowledge-bases-writeback-rag-en","Training Knowledge Bases with WriteBack-RAG","2026-03-28T14:54:45.643433+00:00",{"id":119,"slug":120,"title":121,"created_at":122},"71adc507-3c54-4605-bbe2-c966acd6187e","packforcing-long-video-generation-en","PackForcing: Efficient Long-Video Generation Method","2026-03-28T14:55:02.646943+00:00",{"id":124,"slug":125,"title":126,"created_at":127},"675942ef-b9ec-4c5f-a997-381250b6eacb","pixelsmile-facial-expression-editing-en","PixelSmile Framework Enhances Facial Expression Editing","2026-03-28T14:55:20.633463+00:00",{"id":129,"slug":130,"title":131,"created_at":132},"6954fa2b-8b66-4839-884b-e46f89fa1bc3","adaptive-block-scaled-data-types-en","IF4: Smarter 4-Bit Quantization That Adapts to Your Data","2026-03-31T06:00:36.65963+00:00"]