In July, the American state of Wyoming shared an open job position for the head of its Stable Token Commission.
The executive will work alongside Wyoming’s governor, state auditor, state treasurer and four expert appointees to bring the state’s very own stablecoin to life.
While Wyoming was the first to pass a law on a state stablecoin, it isn’t the only state considering launching its own digital currency.
In April, a similar initiative was proposed in Texas, where lawmakers introduced bills for creating a state-based digital currency backed by gold.
However, the idea of state stablecoins raises many questions: How would they affect the monetary stability of fiat money and the power of the Federal Reserve? Could they be compatible with a central bank digital currency? Do people really want to return to a system with state banks printing their own monetary notes?
The Wyoming experiment
The Wyoming Stable Token Act was originally introduced in February 2022, in the midst of the crypto market crisis. The bill defines the Wyoming stable token as a virtual currency representative of and redeemable for one U.S. dollar held in trust by the state of Wyoming. Basically, the state would tokenize the federal currency on a 1:1 ratio with deposits.
NEWS–bipartisan group of top #Wyoming legislators proposed a bill for State of Wyoming to issue a #stablecoin, 100% backed by USTreasuries, where the State keeps the float. I see pros & cons (didn’t know it was coming) but❤️that Wyoming continues to explore cool #crypto ideas! https://t.co/BXbELukUQE
Explaining why state lawmakers took such an interest in the digital token project, Chris Rothfuss, the minority leader in the Wyoming State Senate, told Cointelegraph:
“Wyoming needs to be able to transact in a digital currency — to accept payments, to make payments, and to do so without risk. The Wyoming stable token is the solution to that challenge.”
A notable reservation in Section 2 of the Stable Token Act makes the state’s attorney general responsible for monitoring the startup phase of the token’s issuance. Should the attorney general believe it contradicts federal or state law, the project would be frozen.
The bill also sets a deadline for the project: The commission’s director shall provide their report on the doability of the stable token no later than Nov. 1, 2023.
Other than that, the document doesn’t specify much; instead, it establishes the Stable Token Commission with the authority to craft further details.
The legislation’s path wasn’t easy. In March 2022, Governor Mark Gordon vetoed the bill, saying he was “unconvinced” that the state’s Treasury was ready to implement the project safely.
Gordon criticized the lack of information and the cost of accounting services, blockchain development and other necessary expenses, and he was skeptical of the project’s purported benefits.
A year later, the governor applauded the effort made by legislators to enhance the document, but voiced new reservations:
“First and foremost, there was no overall plan (a ‘business plan’ for lack of a better term) or, if a plan exists, it did not appear to have been used to guide the legislators in crafting the legislation.”
On March 22, 2023, the Stable Token Act was passed into law without Governor Gordon’s signature. Gordon recognized the state stable token’s potential to “nurture Wyoming’s reputation as a leader in the digital asset world” and deemed the improvements made by the bill’s authors enough to allow it to become law.
The era of multiple stablecoins?
Neither the U.S. Federal Reserve nor any crypto-focused legislators have reacted publicly to the Wyoming project, but it is hard to imagine any kind of affirmative response, given that the American dollar was established precisely to provide a countrywide monetary standard and bring the currency under the purview of the federal government.
So, in principle, any state token project could contradict the logic of central bank currency to a similar degree as private cryptocurrencies.
At the same time, the potential value of Wyoming’s stable token is rigorously tied to the same old American dollar, which makes it less of a separate currency and more of a state-issued financial asset, similar to the state-issued notes for specie of the 19th century.
A $40 note issued by the State Bank of Georgia in 1855. Source: Southern Style Currency
Rothfuss clarified, “We are not issuing a new currency. The Wyoming stable token is a digital representation of a U.S. dollar held in trust by the state of Wyoming on behalf of the tokenholder. We are not competing with the Federal Reserve — we are enabling a technology.”
Some observers still see a potential conflict between the states and the Fed. “Certainly, there will be a tussle between states and the federal government over the former attempting to issue their own stablecoins,” Brent Xu, CEO of Web3 bond-market platform Umee, told Cointelegraph.
But there could be a compromise in which the Federal Reserve allows states to issue stablecoins under a particular framework, he believes, noting the discussions concerning a national framework for stablecoins.
Zachary Townsend, CEO of Bitcoin-based life insurance provider Meanwhile, doesn’t see any potential problems with state stablecoins, as he believes that the very concept of a stablecoin is open to almost any entity, political or corporate, as the recent example with PayPal’s initiative has shown.
He told Cointelegraph, “There are going to be tons of private stablecoins. If I just looked at my life and all the companies I have ‘accounts’ or ‘wallets’ or ‘balances’ with, those are going to transform to become stablecoins within a few years.”
This is something Peter Herzog, state policy lead at the Crypto Council for Innovation, can agree with. “There are a variety of models for stablecoins that involve different decisions around underlying collateral, governance and more,” he explained to Cointelegraph. For Herzog, it comes as no surprise that individual states with an active interest in crypto are continuing their experiments with new initiatives:
“Until we see a federal regulatory framework, it is likely that states continue to step in to create rules of the road to promote innovation and protect consumers.”
Stablecoin use in emerging markets soars despite the absence of crypto-friendly regulations and basic banking infrastructure. Will the US catch up to this trend?
A former Australian prime minister has said his country should be “prepared to make a contribution” to protect the freedom of Ukraine.
Tony Abbott told Sky News’ Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge that no country “will be safe against a bully” if Vladimir Putin wins the war.
He called on Britain to take the lead in protecting Ukraine even without a US backstop– but said all the free countries of the world should be “prepared to make a stand”.
Mr Abbott, who led the conservative Liberal Party, said: “I personally think that Australia should be prepared to make a contribution to the long term freedom and security of Ukraine.
“The Ukrainians have been fighting for the freedom of everyone. And if Putin is able to snuff out the freedom and the independence of Ukraine, what smaller country anywhere is safe against a bully?
“Is Taiwan safe? Is Australia, for that matter, safe? Is Japan safe?
“This is why it’s important that whatever the Americans ultimately do, the free countries of the world are prepared to make a stand in support of the freedom of Ukraine.”
It comes after Sir Keir Starmer urged America to provide a “security guarantee” to deter Putin and said he is prepared to send British troops to Ukraine if a peace deal is made.
The UK prime minister was speaking following a summit of continental leaders that was arranged by French President Emmanuel Macron, after Donald Trump shocked the world by arranging bilateral talks between the US and Russia – excluding Europe and Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:54
US must provide ‘backstop’ to deter Russia
Mr Abbott said Mr Trump “will blight his second presidency” if he hands a victory to Putin.
“If the result of anything the American president does is to leave Ukraine broken, defenceless, and ultimately a colony of imperial Russia, I think that would be a tragedy,” he said.
He said Sir Keir was “sensible and brave” to consider sending peace keeping troops, but he should be prepared to do this without America’s help, and on its own if necessary.
He said: “Britain is a substantial power. After the United States, it’s the second most powerful country, notwithstanding the current weakness of the British Army. And it should be prepared to take a stand for freedom by protecting Ukraine.
“Britain should be prepared to lead here and it should not expect yet again to ride on America’s coat tails.”
Mr Trump has said the US no longer sees the defence of Europe as its primary concern in a major change of policy since the Second World War.
It has prompted calls for the UK and other NATO countries to increase defence spending.
Speaking after the Paris summit on Monday night, Sir Keir said a “US security guarantee” is the only path to peace in Ukraine.
But he also insisted “Europe must play its role”, adding: “I’m prepared to consider committing British forces on the ground alongside others if there is a lasting peace agreement.
“So I will go to Washington next week to meet President Trump and discuss what we see as the key elements of a lasting peace.”
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
However, despite three hours of emergency talks, European leaders left the meeting without a common view.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz described the idea of deploying European peacekeepers as “completely premature” and said it was “completely the wrong time to have this discussion”.
And Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen said her country was “open to discussing many things” but stressed her nation was still very far off deploying its own soldiers to Ukraine.
Watch the full interview on the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge from 6.30pm
Some government departments have been asked to make savings which would amount to a 11% cut in spending – as the prime minister faces calls to raise defence spending.
Sky News has been told that departments which do not have their spending protected have been asked to model two options – “flat” spending, which, adjusted for inflation, amounts to a cut; and a deeper reduction amounting to 11% in real terms.
No final decisions on departmental spending will be taken until the Treasury’s spending review, which sets departmental budgets for three years, and will be completed in June. Decisions on possible spending cuts by departments have been described by sources as “incredibly difficult”.
It comes amid calls to increase defence spending, in the light of the Trump administration’s warning to European nations to shoulder their own security – and send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine.
Sir Keir Starmer has promised to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP but has not set out when this will be achieved. Ministers say a defence review to be published this spring will set out a “roadmap” to it.
Those departments with their budgets protected include the NHS, childcare and schools, defence and overseas aid at 0.5%.
More on Defence
Related Topics:
What could be hit?
This raises the prospect of more severe cuts for unprotected departments including local government – which is responsible for social care – justice, including courts and prisons; the environment, Home Office and culture.
Image: British Army Apache helicopters on a military exercise last May. Pic: Reuters
John Healey the defence secretary, announced a shake-up of defence spending at a speech in Westminster, to focus on “war readiness and deterrence”. He said: “At this time,we must rearm Britain.”
He said: “The decisions that we make right now over the coming weeks will not only define the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine, but the security of our world for a generation to come. And the nature of government means dealing with these challenges”.
Mr Healey would not say how quickly defence spending would rise but said conversations over the past week with the US defence secretary Pete Hegseth were about the need to go further.
He said the message was “not new”, adding: “We know as European nations we need to step up on European security, on defence spending and on Ukraine, especially over the last year we’ve been doing just that. What Pete Hegseth accelerated was that recognition that we’re stepping up, but we must go further.”
Raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would cost ‘£6bn a year’
Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said that increasing defence spending from its current level of 2.3% to 2.5% would mean finding approximately an extra £6bn a year by the end of the parliament.
He said: “Six billion in our overall budget is not enormous. The problem facing the government is that the fiscal situation is so tight, even finding that kind of money is going to be difficult.
“The last government and this one have increased spending quite a bit across quite a range of public services since 2020. So it’s not that we’re coming right off the back of austerity, but we are still in a position where a lot of government departments, the Ministry of Justice, for example, have got less money now than I had all the way back in 2010.
“So it’s still going to be hard for a lot of these areas to swallow any further cuts or even to cope with flat spending.”
A Treasury spokesperson said: “The chancellor has asked all departments to deliver savings and efficiencies of 5% of their current budget as part of the first zero-based spending review in seventeen years and every pound of government spending is being interrogated, to root out waste and get the best value for taxpayers.
“National security is a foundation of this government’s plan for change, which is why we have increased defence spending by almost £3bn while delivering the highest pay rise for our armed forces in over 20 years.
“We will set out a path to 2.5% once the strategic defence review has concluded. We will not give a running commentary while the review is undertaken.”