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.”
Campaigners have criticised a change to the rules around declarations of interest in the House of Lords as a “retrograde step” which will lead to a “significant loss of transparency”.
Since 2000, peers have had to register a list of “non-financial interests” – which includes declaring unpaid but often important roles like being a director, trustee, or chair of a company, think tank or charity.
But that requirement was dropped in April despite staff concerns.
Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, and a former Liberal Democrat MP, wants to see the decision reversed.
“It’s a retrograde step,” he said. “I think we’ve got a significant loss of transparency and accountability and that is bad news for the public.
“More than 25 years ago, the Committee on Standards in Public Life identified that there was a need for peers to register non-financial interests because that could influence their decisions. I’m confused as to what’s happened in the last 25 years that now means this requirement can be scrapped.
“This process seems to be all about making matters simpler for peers, rather than what the code of conduct is supposed to do, which is to boost the public’s confidence.”
Image: MPs and peers alike have long faced scrutiny over their interests outside Westminster. File pic
Rules were too ‘burdensome’, say peers
The change was part of an overhaul of the code of conduct which aimed to “shorten and clarify” the rules for peers.
The House of Lords Conduct Committee argued that updating non-financial interests was “disproportionately burdensome” with “minor and inadvertent errors” causing “large numbers of complaints”.
As a result, the register of Lords interests shrunk in size from 432 pages to 275.
MPs have a different code of conduct, which requires them to declare any formal unpaid positions or other non-financial interests which may be an influence.
A source told Sky News there is real concern among some Lords’ staff about the implications of the change.
Non-financial interest declarations have previously highlighted cases where a peer’s involvement in a think tank or lobbying group overlapped with a paid role.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:23
Protesters disrupt House of Lords
Cricket legend among peers to breach code
There are also examples where a peer’s non-financial interest declaration has prompted an investigation – revealing a financial interest which should have been declared instead.
In 2023, Lord Skidelsky was found to have breached the code after registering his role as chair of a charity’s trustees as a non-financial interest.
Image: Lord Skidelsky. Pic: UK Parliament
The Commissioner for Standards investigated after questions were raised about the charity, the Centre for Global Studies.
He concluded that the charity – which was funded by two Russian businessmen – only existed to support Lord Skidelsky’s work, and had paid his staff’s salaries for over 12 years.
In 2021, Lord Botham – the England cricket legend – was found to have breached the code after registering a non-financial interest as an unpaid company director.
The company’s accounts subsequently revealed he and his wife had benefitted from a director’s loan of nearly £200,000. It was considered a minor breach and he apologised.
Image: Former cricketer Lord Botham. File pic: PA
‘Follow the money’
Lord Eric Pickles, the former chair of the anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, believes focusing on financial interests makes the register more transparent.
“My view is always to follow the money. Everything else on a register is camouflage,” he said.
“Restricting the register to financial reward will give peers little wriggle room. I know this is counterintuitive, but the less there is on the register, the more scrutiny there will be on the crucial things.”
Image: Lord Eric Pickles
‘I was shocked’
The SNP want the House of Lords to be scrapped, and has no peers of its own. Deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart MP is deeply concerned by the changes.
“I was actually quite horrified and quite shocked,” he said.
“This is an institution that’s got no democratic accountability, it’s a job for life. If anything, members of the House of Lords should be regulated and judged by a higher standard than us in the House of Commons – and what’s happened is exactly the opposite.”
Image: Michelle Mone attends the state opening of parliament in 2019. Pic: Reuters
The government has pledged to reform the House of Lords and is currently trying to push through a bill abolishing the 92 remaining hereditary peers, which will return to the House of Commons in September.
But just before recess the bill was amended in the Lords so that they can remain as members until retirement or death. It’s a change which is unlikely to be supported by MPs.
Image: MPs and peers alike have long faced scrutiny over their interests outside Westminster. File pic
A spokesperson for the House of Lords said: “Maintaining public confidence in the House of Lords is a key objective of the code of conduct. To ensure that, the code includes rigorous rules requiring the registration and declaration of all relevant financial interests held by members of the House of Lords.
“Public confidence relies, above all, on transparency over the financial interests that may influence members’ conduct. This change helps ensure the rules regarding registration of interests are understandable, enforceable and focused on the key areas of public concern.
“Members may still declare non-financial interests in debate, where they consider them directly relevant, to inform the House and wider public.
“The Conduct Committee is appointed to review the code of conduct, and it will continue to keep all issues under review. During its review of the code of conduct, the committee considered written evidence from both Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK, among others.”
Federico Carrone, a privacy-focused Ethereum core developer, confirmed that he has been released after being accused by Turkish authorities of aiding the “misuse” of an Ethereum privacy protocol.
In January, the Terraform Labs co-founder pleaded not guilty to several charges, including securities fraud, market manipulation, money laundering and wire fraud.