Recently, statements from representatives of the largest financial institutions about digital currencies being the future have become increasingly frequent. However, behind this favorability lies a far harsher position: regulators and central banks around the world see "private" cryptocurrencies as a direct threat to their levers of economic control. And this resistance is no accident—it is embedded in the very nature of decentralized assets.
The Essence of the Conflict: Control Over the Money Supply
Recently, the head of one of Russia's systemically important banks spoke on this matter with utmost frankness. According to him, non-state cryptocurrencies undermine the very foundations of monetary policy. Central banks operate with tools such as monetary aggregates M1 and M2, key rates, and other regulatory mechanisms. But when an unregulated market exists in parallel, one that does not obey these rules, the effectiveness of the entire system diminishes.
"Private, non-state cryptocurrencies generate understandable resistance from all countries in the form of central banks and financial authorities, because we have policy there, M1, M2, rates. And then suddenly—there's a market existing in parallel that is not regulated in any way," the banker emphasized.
Predictions of Banks' Demise Did Not Come True
Interestingly, the same experts who now fear cryptocurrencies were predicting the imminent demise of the traditional banking system two decades ago. Forecasts were made that blockchain would replace all settlements and banks would disappear. Twenty years have passed—and none of that happened. Banks not only survived but adapted, and cash, contrary to expectations, is gaining popularity again.
Banks' Strategy: Not to Fight, but to Absorb
Realizing the impossibility of stopping the technology, financial giants have changed their tactics. Instead of fighting, they began building their own infrastructure around cryptocurrencies. The largest banks have already prepared the technical foundation for cross-border settlements in digital assets. Competition for this market will be extremely fierce, and the first clients will be miners and importers who already work with cryptocurrency.
The same logic can be traced in the story of ruble stablecoins. The regulator prefers not to notice the largest tokenized project with a turnover exceeding $100 billion, backed by a state bank. This silence is explained by the protection of the digital ruble and the reluctance to hand over control of issuance to private hands.
Global practice confirms this trend. In the United States, a coalition of 39 banking associations announced the creation of its own blockchain network for stablecoins, which 3,283 banks with assets of $21.8 trillion plan to launch by 2027. The first studies are also telling: the Central Bank of Italy tested USDC transfers and found that costs range from 0.3% to 9%, offering no stable advantage over traditional channels.
My view: We are witnessing a classic process of technology co-optation. Banks cannot defeat cryptocurrencies, so they are trying to institutionalize them and bring them under their control. However, it is precisely this strategy that could lead to the opposite effect—the creation of a hybrid system where decentralized assets become not an alternative, but an integral part of the global financial architecture. The only question is who will ultimately set the rules of the game.