The concept of a Russian ruble stablecoin received special attention at a major local crypto event, the Blockchain Forum in Moscow, with key industry executives reflecting on some of the core features a ruble-backed stablecoin might require.
Sergey Mendeleev, founder of the digital settlement exchange Exved and inactive founder of the sanctioned Garantex exchange, put forward seven key criteria for a potential “replica of Tether” in a keynote at the Blockchain Forum on April 23.
Mendeleev said a potential ruble stablecoin must have untraceable transactions and allow transfers without Know Your Customer (KYC) checks.
However, because one of the criteria also requires the stablecoin to comply with Russian regulations, he expressed skepticism that such a product could emerge soon.
The DAI model praised
Mendeleev proposed that a potential Russian “Tether replica” must be overcollateralized similarly to the Dai (DAI) stablecoin model, a decentralized algorithmic stablecoin that maintains its one-to-one peg with the US dollar using smart contracts.
“So, any person who buys it will understand that the contract is based on the assets that super-securitize it, not somewhere on some unknown accounts, but free to be checked by simple crypto methods,” he said.
Source: Cointelegraph
Another must-have feature should be excess liquidity on both centralized and decentralized exchanges, Mendeleev said, adding that users must be able to exchange the stablecoin at any time they need.
According to Mendeleev, a viable ruble-pegged stablecoin also needs to offer non-KYC transactions, so users are not required to pass their data to start using it.
“The Russian ruble stablecoin should have the opportunity where people use it without disclosing their data,” he stated.
In the meantime, users should be able to earn interest on holding the stablecoin, Mendelev continued, adding that offering this feature is available via smart contracts.
Russia opts for centralization
Mendeleev also suggested that a potential Russian version of Tether’s USDt (USDT) would need to feature untraceable and cheap transactions, while its smart contracts should not enable blocks or freezes.
The final criterion is that a potential ruble stablecoin would have to be regulated in accordance with the Russian legislation, which currently doesn’t look promising, according to Mendeleev.
Sergey Mendeleev at the Blockchain Forum in Moscow. Source: Bits.Media
“Once we put these seven points together […] then it would be a real alternative, which would help us at least compete with the solutions that are currently on the market,” he stated at the conference, adding:
“Unfortunately, from the point of view of regulation, we are currently going in the absolutely opposite direction […] We are going in the direction of absolute centralization, not in the direction of liberalization of laws, but consolidation of prohibitions.”
Possible solutions
While the regulatory side is not looking good, a potential Russian version of USDT is technically feasible, Mendeleev told Cointelegraph.
“Except for anonymous transactions, everything is easy to implement and has already been deployed by several projects, but it’s just not unified in one project yet,” he said.
The crypto advocate specifically referred to interesting opportunities by projects like the ruble-pegged A7A5 stablecoin, unblockable contracts at DAI, and others.
Regulation is necessary but not enough, Mendeleev said, adding that the most difficult part is the trust of users who must see the ruble stablecoin as a viable alternative to major alternatives like USDT.
Elsewhere, the Bank of Russia has continued to progress its central bank digital currency project, the digital ruble. According to Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, the digital ruble is scheduled to be rolled out for commercial banks in the second half of 2025.
A temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex has been overturned at the Court of Appeal.
The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, have successfully challenged a High Court ruling. Today’s hearing saw both parties win the right to appeal, before also winning the appeals themselves.
Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, quashed an earlier injunction granted to Epping Forest District Council, saying: “We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025.”
This means asylum seekers will stay in the accommodation in Essex past 12 September. There are currently 138 asylum seekers being housed at the hotel.
Image: Lord Justice Bean delivering the ruling. Pic: PA
Last week, the initial court ruling centred on the change in use of the premises without consent from the local authority.
But after the Home Office argued its case – which involved stating it had the right to appeal – judges have backed the government’s side.
The decision avoids a precedent for other councils to appeal against asylum hotels in their areas.
Council ‘will continue the fight’
A councillor for Epping said the “battle is not over” after the Court of Appeal ruling and vowed the council would “continue the fight”.
Image: Councillor Ken Williamson. Pic: PA
Speaking outside the London court, Ken Williamson, said: “We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s hearing.
“The concern and motivation of Epping Forest District Council throughout has been the wellbeing of our local residents, where we had clarity and resolution, we now have doubt and confusion.”
The council could still be granted an injunction following a full hearing of the legal claim, which is due to be heard in October.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:44
Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice: Epping residents should feel ‘angry and frustrated’
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also criticised the ruling, claiming that “illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under (Keir) Starmer”.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch echoed this in her own statement, saying: “Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities.”
She also urged Conservative councillors seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels to “keep going” despite the ruling.
Focal point of protests
Epping Forest District Council had asked for the injunction after the Bell Hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests. It claimed its owner, Somani Hotels, had breached planning rules.
Lord Justice Stephen Eyre, who gave the original High Court decision, had said that while the council had not “definitively established” that the company had breached planning rules, “the strength of the claimant’s case is such that it weighs in favour” of granting the injunction.
Image: Anti-migration protesters in Epping in July
Regular protests have been held outside the Bell Hotel since an asylum seeker housed there was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in July.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denies two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity, and one count of harassment without violence.
Image: A view of an England flag outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, after a temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, was overturned at the Court of Appeal. Picture date: Friday A
After the Court of Appeal ruling, a small number of protesters gathered outside the Bell Hotel carrying England and Union flags, with police officers guarding the entrance to the hotel, which is gated off with metal fencing.
An England flag has been attached to a drainpipe outside the hotel, while England flags have also been painted onto signs and a speed camera outside the hotel.
Avalanche transaction growth topped all blockchain networks with 66%, as the smart-contract network saw more government implementation and renewed ETF applications.
Unicoin urged a New York judge to toss the SEC’s $100 million fraud case, arguing the regulator misquoted filings and relied on “snippets” taken out of context.