Banks

US Treasury study finds CBDCs a plus for commercial bank stability

Access to CBDCs reduces banks’ need to insure against liquidity risks and gives policymakers greater information about trouble in the financial system, according to the study.

The introduction of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) may increase the stability of a banking system, according to a paper released Tuesday by the United States Treasury Office of Financial Research. 

This finding counters concerns that a CBDC may encourage runs on weaker banks.

According to the Tuesday paper, researchers often claim that the public may in times of financial stress “pull funds out of banks and other financial institutions” meaning that a “CBDC could make runs on financial firms more likely or more severe.”

The authors, however, argued that a well-designed CBDC could mitigate that risk and also offered two arguments that favored the role of CBDCs in increasing financial stability. 

First, the authors created a mathematical model in which banks performed maturity transformation. That is, they borrowed money for shorter periods than they made loans for to insure against liquidity risk. This could create financial fragility in case of an adverse event, and that could lead to a bank run.

In the authors’ model, however, access to a CBDC “intuitively” makes “experiencing a liquidity shock” less costly to depositors, so banks can provide less insurance against this risk. Thus, a CBDC leads to greater stability of the financial system:

“In this way, the adjustments in private financial arrangements in response to a CBDC may tend to stabilize rather than destabilize the financial system.”

The second argument was based on a so-called information effect. Banks in weak positions may try to hide that fact from regulators to avoid intervention. Hiding unfavorable information could also make the crisis worse because of delayed response.

Related: BIS: 90% of Central Banks are researching the utility of CBDCs

However, the nature of CBDCs will allow policymakers the ability to identify situations where funds are being converted and not simply withdrawn from a bank — thus spotting problems sooner which can lead to a faster resolution:

“By allowing a quicker policy reaction to a crisis, this information effect is another channel through which CBDC may tend to improve rather than worsen financial stability.”

The authors point out that other researchers have suggested imposing caps, fees or other restrictions on CBDC during crises. The authors argue against this approach, noting:

“Policies that limit the use or attractiveness of CBDC risk losing many of its potential benefits as well.”

They also argue that the benefits of the greater information available to policymakers in the presence of a CBDC may have a variety of beneficial uses.

Dutch bank ING sells digital asset tool Pyctor to GMEX

GMEX has acquired ING’s Pyctor business to connect CeFi and DeFi amid the increasing demand for hybrid finance.

ING Group, a Dutch multinational banking and financial services corporation, has spun out its digital asset business Pyctor to multi-asset trading infrastructure firm GMEX.

GMEX has acquired ING’s institutional-grade digital asset custody solution Pyctor in a multi-million dollar deal, the companies said in a joint announcement on Monday.

The Pyctor offering compliments GMEX’s MultiHub service, an institutional cross-platform business launched last year with the mission to bridge the gap between centralized finance (CeFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi), GMEX CEO Hirander Misra told Cointelegraph.

Pyctor expands MultiHub with a number of digital asset-focused capabilities, including smart contract features, post-trade custodial and institutional network capabilities like the fragmentation of private keys.

Pyctor is also designed to support regulatory compliance, including a major Anti-Money Laundering framework by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) referred to as the Travel Rule

“There is a market need for this type of offering built by a bank for banks, asset managers and corporate clients, which can now operate in a neutral environment for institutional participants,” Misra said. Institutions are increasingly seeking to expand their capabilities into digital assets trading and settlement in a way that is interoperable with existing CeFi systems and asset classes, the CEO added, stating:

“This calls for the need for hybrid finance, or HyFi, which delivers a hybrid digital market infrastructure solution with interoperability of multiple blockchains and API integration into traditional systems to ensure a cohesive approach.”

ING started Pyctor as a project incubated out of its innovation arm ING Labs in Amsterdam in 2018. Pyctor’s technology manages private keys by fragmenting and distributing them among blockchain nodes hosted by regulated institutions. 

ING completed Pyctor’s first proof of concept in 2019 and then formed a working group for sandbox trials, including participation from major global banks and firms like BNP Paribas, Citi, ABN AMRO, Societe Generale, Invesco, UBS, State Street, Forge and others.

Related: JPMorgan trials blockchain for collateral settlement in after-hours trading

As previously reported by Cointelegraph, ING has been working on proprietary cryptocurrency custody technology tools since at least 2019 alongside many other blockchain-related activities. In 2021, ING conducted a trial of a DeFi peer-to-peer lending protocol with the Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets.

Peter Schiff’s bank closure strengthens Bitcoin case for financial freedom

Puerto Rico regulators closed down Schiff’s bank for not maintaining the net minimum capital requirements. As a result, customers lost access to their accounts following a subsequent freeze.

Prominent economist Peter Schiff, who is well-known in the community for his anti-crypto sentiments, had his bank shut down by Puerto Rico regulators. The revelation, however, led to Crypto Twitter pointing out the “irony” as Schiff’s prediction for Bitcoin (BTC) came true for his own traditional bank.

Puerto Rico regulators closed down Schiff’s bank for not maintaining the net minimum capital requirements, which further impacted the customers as they lost access to their accounts following a subsequent freeze.

While acknowledging that “customers may lose money,” Schiff stated that he was unaware of the regulatory minimums and was not presented with any form of legal notice prior to the abrupt closure. He added:

“It costs a fortune to run a small bank. That’s why I never really made any money. The compliance costs are outrageous.”

As a witness to what many consider an epic plot twist, the crypto community took the opportunity to explain the importance of Bitcoin in reinventing the core of traditional finance.

Bitcoin podcaster Stephan Livera, too, chimed in on the development as he said, “He’s [Schiff] been a #bitcoin skeptic since $17.50.” The sudden closure of Schiff’s bank in Puerto Rico reignited the discussions around Bitcoin’s resistance to judicial supremacy. 

“The irony here is priceless,” added @HodlMagoo, while others rhetorically helped Schiff find a promising alternative to traditional finance, asking “Do you understand why you need bitcoin now?”

On the other end of the spectrum, Puerto Rico has been receptive to crypto acceptance in the region. On April 20, Puerto Rico authorities became the fourth jurisdiction in America to award a money transmitter license to Binance.US, a United States-based subsidiary of crypto exchange Binance.

While the crypto community empathizes with Schiff and the bank’s customers for their losses, the episode further cements Bitcoin’s position as the ultimate replacement of traditional finance.

Related: Deutsche Bank analysts see Bitcoin recovering to $28K by December

Analysts from Deutsche Bank forecasted BTC prices to rebound back to $28,000 by the end of the year despite an ongoing bear market.

Analysts Marion Laboure and Galina Pozdnyakova envisioned the Standard and Poor (S&P) to rebound back to its January levels, which in turn, could result in a 30% increase in Bitcoin’s value from current levels midway through 2022 — bringing up its price to the $28,000 mark.

Integrating blockchain-based digital IDs into daily life

Blockchain tech is pushing the boundaries of ID management as governments look for scalable solutions that promote privacy, control and decentralized data management.

The last 13 years have seen blockchain technology evolve into numerous use cases — finance, data, logistics and security, among others. However, the idea of using blockchain’s immutable capabilities to ID humans got new life when Changpeng “CZ” Zhao visited the island country of Palau to kick off its digital residency program. 

The blockchain identity management market is estimated to grow by $3.58 billion in the span of five years from 2021 to 2025. Key factors include the rising demand for digitalization and privacy-respecting identity solutions. As a result, a myriad of solutions breached the market serving this need in the form of nonfungible tokens (NFT), distributed ledger technology (DLT) and barebone blockchain technology.

Considering the plethora of use cases that blockchain can serve on a day-to-day basis, numerous government organizations began experimenting with the technology — weighing heavily on central bank digital currencies (CBDC) and verifiable and immutable user identity.

Problems with traditional IDs

Correctly identifying — or ID-ing — an individual has always been paramount to governments to ensure targeted delivery of services and allowances, among other requirements, which holds true to this day. However, ongoing advancements in technology empowered the general public with tools to create IDs visually identical to the original. Given blockchain’s capability to store immutable records, authorities see the technology as a fighting chance against fraud related to ID theft and fakes. 

With traditional paper-based IDs comes the difficulty of confirming their legitimacy across different systems. History has shown how people successfully use fake ID cards to claim unauthorized access to a myriad of benefits. However, technological advancements such as blockchain have provided authorities with the opportunity to issue verifiable certificates and IDs while ensuring scalability, speed and security of the identity management system.

Efforts on this front saw the rise of a new ecosystem comprising various blockchain-based digital ID offerings. For example, Shubham Gupta, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, recently spearheaded the launch of a Polygon-based system for issuing verifiable caste certificates on behalf of the government of Maharashtra.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, he said, “if identity management systems have to be rated on a scale of 0 to 1 based on decentralization and individual control, traditional centralized ID systems will be on the far left and fully self-hosted, public blockchain-based IDs on the extreme right.”

Forms of blockchain-based digital IDs

While blockchain technology can and has been used as-is for maintaining immutable records over the internet, innovations spanning over the last decade resulted in the birth of sub ecosystems around the use of blockchain technology. 

“The idea of blockchain-based digital IDs has been floating around for quite a while but came into the limelight with the recent NFT boom,” blockchain adviser and Bundlesbets.com CEO Brenda Gentry told Cointelegraph.

An Italian electronic identity document.

While NFTs were first marketed as a tool to represent real-world objects including intellectual and physical assets, the technology found itself well-suited for a variety of applications. Recently, government organizations have begun testing NFTs for ID-ing citizens as means to reduce operational costs.

“Wide-scale implementation of blockchain-based digital IDs — like issuance of national identity cards such as passports and driving licenses — takes time but I strongly believe that is the destination that the world should move toward,” Gentry added. In addition to helping authenticate people, blockchain technology discourages counterfeiting, tampering or identity theft attempts.

Citing the involvement of luxury brands and artists that promoted the use of NFTs to authenticate the legitimacy and ownership of a product or art, Gentry opined that “luxury items can be checked for their authenticity on-chain which completely eliminates the chance of owning a counterfeit product.”

Recent: Uganda’s gold discovery: What it could mean for crypto

Neil Martis, the co-founder and project lead of LegitDoc, which is known in the space for delivering numerous blockchain-based certificates and ID solutions to the state governments of India, envisions a greater adoption of public blockchain-based ledgers over the next decade. Web3-native decentralized IDs will play an incremental role in identifying users and authenticating them to participate in different types of Web3 native transactions.

Benefits of blockchain-based digital IDs

While blockchain’s elevator pitch is heavily inclined toward immutability, the technology boasts multiple advantages over traditional software and paper-based systems. The opinions regarding the benefits of blockchain boil down to the control over personal information.

Self-sovereignty stands as one of the biggest benefits of blockchain-based digital IDs, according to Martis. This means that blockchain empowers users to share partial or selective information with their service providers instead of handing over their complete identity.

With blockchain-based IDs eradicating the misuse of information, experts envision the birth of a truly trustless system without the involvement of third parties. Gentry, too, reiterated verifiability, traceability and uniqueness as some of the major benefits brought about by blockchain, as she highlighted that blockchain IDs cannot be duplicated because it’s on the distributed ledger. “All the Digital ID can be verified on the blockchain and can be traced back to the owners’ account which can also be used for Know Your Customer,” she added.

Limitations of blockchain-based digital IDs

Mainstream acceptance of blockchain-based digital IDs will ultimately have to mean overcoming the most pressing challenges that threaten to hinder its adoption. Some of the roadblocks that stand out in the current landscape include a lack of education among the masses and a supportive regulatory environment.

On the education front, Gentry has noticed a fast-changing scenario brought about by mainstream discussions and widespread adoption of the technology. However, the creation of pro-crypto regulations will need greater intervention from industry players to help countries and institutions get onboarded onto the blockchain network.

Martis concurred with Gentry’s thoughts on regulations as he highlighted that blockchain IDs, no matter how decentralized, will need attestation or recognition by the issuing authorities. He added: “if the issuing authorities don’t recognize the validity of the blockchain IDs, then the same cannot be used for availing a majority of public services. This in my opinion is the biggest limitation.”

Blockchain of choice for ID-ing people

Given that a majority of real-world identity systems are under the purview of governments and sovereigns, Martis envisions greater adoption of permissioned distributed ledger networks for issuing Identities that require government services.

Gentry noted that choosing the perfect blockchain for IDing people or goods will require weighing the unique advantages and limitations of the various blockchain ecosystems. While highlighting the existing concerns such as Ethereum’s gas fees or Solana’s infamous outages, the blockchain advisor suggested that Binance’s BNB Chain is the perfect choice of blockchain because of its high transactions per second and low latency and fees.

Recent: Bitcoin payments make a lot of sense for SMEs but the risks still remain

Speaking from personal experience, Gupta shared that Indian state governments tend to choose a middle ground wherein instead of a single authority fully in control of citizen identities, a group of independent departments will share a common distributed ledger that hosts citizen identities, anchored periodically on a public blockchain.

The Maharashtra government is currently working to deploy a scalable blockchain-based ID system for a tribal population of 1.2 million. Martis explains that the IDs created will be used by various departments to perform analytics and identify the right beneficiaries for various national schemes.

Regardless of the challenges that slow down blockchain adoption across business verticals, the advantages of the technology make its dominance inevitable. Government organizations and private entities have amped up efforts in uncovering futureproof fintech solutions via blockchain innovations. Blockchain disruptions that are well-positioned to go mainstream in addition to identity management include localized CBDCs, supply chain solutions and cross-border settlements.

Decentralized identities or DIDs (decentralized identifiers) have yet to see wide-scale implementation. According to Martis, they should be settled or issued by highly decentralized public blockchains that are outside state control, adding that “Bitcoin and Ethereum stand out as the obvious choices in this regard.” 

Tether aims to decrease commercial paper backing of USDT to zero

Tether expects to reduce USDT’s commercial paper backing to $8.4 billion by the end of June 2022 and eventually completely remove it.

The major stablecoin company Tether is looking to eventually get rid of commercial paper backing for its United States dollar-based stablecoin Tether (USDT).

Tether issued an official statement on Wednesday to deny reports alleging that Tether’s commercial paper portfolio is 85% backed by Chinese or Asian commercial papers and is being traded at a 30% discount.

The stablecoin firm called such allegations “completely false,” reiterating that more than 47% of total USDT reserves are now the “United States Treasuries.” In its latest assurance opinion issued in May, Tether reported that commercial paper makes up less than 25% of USDT’s backing, amounting to around $21 billion as of March 31.

USDT’s backing asset breakdown. Source: Tether’s assurance opinion released in May 2022

According to the latest statement, Tether has continued to reduce its current portfolio of commercial paper, decreasing its volumes to $11 billion. The firm expects to further reduce it to $8.4 billion by the end of June 2022, eventually aiming to clear out its commercial paper backing, the statement reads:

“This will gradually decrease to zero without any incurrences of losses. All commercial papers are expiring and will be rolled into U.S. Treasuries with a short maturity.”

Tether also once again mentioned the recent crisis of the Celsius lending platform, noting that Celsius position has been liquidated with no losses to Tether. “Tether has currently zero exposure to Celsius apart from a small investment made out of Tether equity in the company,” the firm said.

Related: Su Zhu’s cryptic statement as rumors swirl of 3AC liquidations and insolvency

Tether also argued that reports suggesting that Tether has lending exposure to the crypto venture capital firm Three Arrows Capital are also “categorically false.”

Bitcoin and banking’s differing energy narratives are a matter of perspective

Bitcoin mining’s climate impact has been heavily criticized, but the emissions of corporate cash and investments have often flown under the radar.

The Carbon Bankroll Report was released on May 17 as a collaboration among the Climate Safe Lending Network, The Outdoor Policy Outfit and Bank FWD. The collaboration made it possible to calculate the emissions generated due to a company’s cash and investments, such as cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

The report revealed that for several large companies, such as Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and Salesforce, the cash and investments are their largest source of emissions.

The energy consumption of the flagship proof-of-work (PoW) blockchain network, Bitcoin, has been a matter of debate in which the network and its participants, especially miners, are criticized for contributing to an ecosystem that might be worsening climate change. However, recent findings have also brought the carbon impact of traditional investments under the radar.

Bitcoin is often vilified due to “imagery”

The Carbon Bankroll Report was drafted by James Vaccaro, executive director at the Climate Safe Lending Network, and Paul Moinester, executive director and founder of the Outdoor Policy Outfit. Regarding the impact of the report, Jamie Beck Alexander, director of Drawdown Labs, stated:

“Until now, the role that corporate banking practices play in fueling the climate crisis has been murky at its best. This landmark report shines a floodlight. The research and findings contained in this report offer companies a new, massively important opportunity to help shift our financial system away from fossil fuels and deforestation toward climate solutions on a global scale. Companies that are serious about their climate pledges will welcome this breakthrough and move urgently toward tapping this lever for systematic change.”

A few metrics that the report highlighted regarding the climatic impact of the banking industry include:

  • Since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015, 60 of the world’s largest commercial and investment banks have invested $4.6 trillion in the fossil fuel industry.
  • Banks such as Citi, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have invested $1.2 billion in said industry.
  • The largest banks and asset managers in the United States have been responsible for financing the equivalent of 1.968 billion tons of carbon dioxide. If the U.S. financial sector were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter in the world, just after Russia.
  • When compared to the direct operational emissions of global financial firms, the emissions generated through investing, lending and underwriting activities are 700 times higher.

Cointelegraph spoke with Cameron Collins, an investment analyst at Viridi Funds — a crypto investment fund manager — about the reasons behind the excessive vilification of the Bitcoin network. He said: 

“It’s easy to picture a warehouse of high-performance computers sucking down power, but it’s not so easy to picture the downstream effects of cash in circulation financing carbon-intensive activities. More often than not, it’s this imagery that demonizes Bitcoin mining. In reality, the entire banking system uses more electricity in operations than that of the Bitcoin mining industry.”

In addition to the portrayed “imagery,” there have been various efforts to track the exact energy consumption of operating the Bitcoin network. One of the most widely accepted metrics for this complex variable is calculated by the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance and is known as the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI).

At the time of writing, the index estimates that the annualized consumption of energy by the Bitcoin network is 117.71 terawatt-hours (TWh). The CBECI model uses various parameters such as network hash rate, miner fees, mining difficulty, mining equipment efficiency, electricity cost and power usage effectiveness to compute the annualized consumption for the network.

The growth in the number of participants and related activity on the Bitcoin network is evident in the monthly electricity consumption of the network. From January 2017 to May 2022, the monthly electricity consumption has multiplied over 17 times from 0.62 TWh to currently standing at 10.67 TWh. In comparison, companies such as PayPal, Alphabet and Netflix have witnessed their carbon emissions multiplied by 55, 38 and 10 times, respectively.

Collins spoke further about the perception of the Bitcoin network that could be changed in the future. He added that if more people approached Bitcoin (BTC) mining as a financial service as opposed to mining, sentiment surrounding PoW networks might begin to change, and the public may appreciate it more as an essential service as opposed to a reckless gold rush. He also highlighted the role of thought leaders in the community in conveying the true nature of Bitcoin mining to policymakers and the public at large.

Working together to solve the energy problem

Recently, there have been several examples of the Bitcoin mining community collaborating with the energy industry — and vice-versa — to work on methodologies beneficial for both parties. The American Energy company, Crusoe Energy, is repurposing wasted fuel energy to power Bitcoin mining, starting in Oman. The country exports 23% of its total gas production and aims to reduce gas flaring to an absolute zero by 2030.

Even the United States energy giant ExxonMobil couldn’t help but get in on the action. In March this year, it was revealed that Crusoe Energy had inked a deal with ExxonMobil to use excess gas from oil wells in North Dakota to run Bitcoin miners. Traditionally, energy companies resort to a process known as gas flaring to get rid of the excess gas from oil wells.

Related: Stranded no more? Bitcoin miners could help solve Big Oil’s gas problem

A report released by the Bitcoin Mining Council in January revealed that the Bitcoin mining industry increased the sustainable energy mix of its consumption by nearly 59% between 2020 and 2021. The Bitcoin Mining Council is a group of 44 Bitcoin mining companies that represent over 50% of the entire network’s mining power.

Cointelegraph spoke to Bryan Routledge, associate professor of finance at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, about the comparison between the carbon emissions from Bitcoin and traditional banking.

He stated, “Bitcoin (blockchain) is a record-keeping technology. Is there another protocol that would be comparably secure but not as energy costly as PoW? There are certainly lots of people working on that. Similarly, we can compare Bitcoin to record-keeping financial transactions in regular banks.”

The block reward for mining a block of Bitcoin currently stands at 6.25 BTC, over $190,000 as per current prices, and the current average number of transactions per block stands around 1,620 as per data from Blockchain.com. This entails that the average reward of one transaction could be estimated to be over $117, a reasonable reward for a single transaction.

Routledge further added, “Traditional banks are a far larger size and so, in aggregate, have a large impact on the environment. But for many transactions, there is a much lower per-transaction cost — e.g., an ATM fee. BTC has lots of benefits, arguably. But surely becoming more efficient seems an important step.”

Since gauging the true impact of Bitcoin is not really a quantifiable effort due to the significant change that the technology and the currency represent, it is important to remember that the energy consumption of Bitcoin can’t be vilified in an isolated manner. The global financial community often tends to forget the high impact of the current banking system that is not offset by corporate social responsibility and other incentives alone.

Is education the key to curbing the rise of scammy, high APY projects?

As DeFi projects offering insane returns continue to infiltrate the market, experts believe that investors need to better equip themselves to avoid such scams.

Most people who have dealt with cryptocurrencies in any capacity over the last couple of years are well aware that there are many projects out there offering eye-popping annual percentage yields (APY) these days. 

In fact, many decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols that have been built using the proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus protocol offer ridiculous returns to their investors in return for them staking their native tokens.

However, like most deals that sound too good to be true, many of these offerings are out-and-out cash grab schemes — at least that’s what the vast majority of experts claim. For example, YieldZard, a project positioning itself as a DeFi innovation-focused company with an auto-staking protocol, claims to offer a fixed APY of 918,757% to its clients. In simple terms, if one were to invest $1,000 in the project, the returns accrued would be $9,187,570, a figure that, even to the average eye, would look shady, to say the least.

YieldZard is not the first such project, with the offering being a mere imitation of Titano, an early auto-staking token offering fast and high payouts.

Are such returns actually feasible?

To get a better idea of whether these seemingly ludicrous returns are actually feasible in the long run, Cointelegraph reached out to Kia Mosayeri, product manager at Balancer Labs — a DeFi automated market-making protocol using novel self-balancing weighted pools. In his view:

“Sophisticated investors will want to look for the source of the yield, its sustainability and capacity. A yield that is driven from sound economical value, such as interest paid for borrowing capital or percentage fees paid for trading, would be rather more sustainable and scalable than yield that comes from arbitrary token emissions.”

Providing a more holistic overview of the matter, Ran Hammer, vice president of business development for public blockchain infrastructure at Orbs, told Cointelegraph that aside from the ability to facilitate decentralized financial services, DeFi protocols have introduced another major innovation to the crypto ecosystem: the ability to earn yield on what is more or less passive holding. 

He further explained that not all yields are equal by design because some yields are rooted in “real” revenue, while others are the result of high emissions based on Ponzi-like tokenomics. In this regard, when users act as lenders, stakers or liquidity providers, it is very important to understand where the yield is emanating from. For example, transaction fees in exchange for computing power, trading fees on liquidity, a premium for options or insurance and interest on loans are all “real yields.”

However, Hammer explained that most incentivized protocol rewards are funded through token inflation and may not be sustainable, as there is no real economic value funding these rewards. This is similar in concept to Ponzi schemes where an increasing amount of new purchasers are required in order to keep tokenomics valid. He added:

“Different protocols calculate emissions using different methods. It is much more important to understand where the yield originates from while taking inflation into account. Many projects are using rewards emissions in order to generate healthy holder distribution and to bootstrap what is otherwise healthy tokenomics, but with higher rates, more scrutiny should be applied.”

Echoing a similar sentiment, Lior Yaffe, co-founder and director of blockchain software firm Jelurida, told Cointelegraph that the idea behind most high yield projects is that they promise stakers high rewards by extracting very high commissions from traders on a decentralized exchange and/or constantly mint more tokens as needed to pay yields to their stakers. 

This trick, Yaffe pointed out, can work as long as there are enough fresh buyers, which really depends on the team’s marketing abilities. However, at some point, there is not enough demand for the token, so just minting more coins depletes their value quickly. “At this time, the founders usually abandon the project just to reappear with a similar token sometime in the future,” he said.

High APYs are fine, but can only go so far

Narek Gevorgyan, CEO of cryptocurrency portfolio management and DeFi wallet app CoinStats, told Cointelegraph that billions of dollars are being pilfered from investors every year, primarily because they fall prey to these kinds of high-APY traps, adding:

“I mean, it is fairly obvious that there is no way projects can offer such high APYs for extended durations. I’ve seen a lot of projects offering unrealistic interest rates — some well beyond 100% APY and some with 1,000% APY. Investors see big numbers but often overlook the loopholes and accompanying risks.”

He elaborated that, first and foremost, investors need to realize that most returns are paid in cryptocurrencies, and since most cryptocurrencies are volatile, the assets lent to earn such unrealistic APYs can decrease in value over time, leading to major impermanent losses. 

Related: What is impermanent loss and how to avoid it?

Gevorgyan further noted that in some cases, when a person stakes their crypto and the blockchain is making use of an inflation model, it’s fine to receive APYs, but when it comes to really high yields, investors have to exercise extreme caution, adding:

“There’s a limit to what a project can offer to its investors. Those high numbers are a dangerous combination of madness and hubris, given that even if you offer high APY, it must go down over time — that’s basic economics — because it becomes a matter of the project’s survival.”

And while he conceded that there are some projects that can deliver comparatively higher returns in a stable fashion, any offering advertising fixed and high APYs for extended durations should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion. “Again, not all are scams, but projects that claim to offer high APYs without any transparent proof of how they work should be avoided,” he said.

Not everyone agrees, well almost

0xUsagi, the pseudonymous protocol lead for Thetanuts — a crypto derivatives trading platform that boasts high organic yields — told Cointelegraph that a number of approaches can be employed to achieve high APYs. He stated that token yields are generally calculated by distributing tokens pro-rata to users based on the amount of liquidity provided in the project tracked against an epoch, adding:

“It would be unfair to call this mechanism a scam, as it should be seen more as a customer acquisition tool. It tends to be used at the start of the project for fast liquidity acquisition and is not sustainable in the long term.”

Providing a technical breakdown of the matter, 0xUsagi noted that whenever a project’s developer team prints high token yields, liquidity floods into the project; however, when it dries up, the challenge becomes that of liquidity retention. 

When this happens, two types of users emerge: the first, who leave in search of other farms to earn high yields, and the second, who continue to support the project. “Users can refer to Geist Finance as an example of a project that printed high APYs but still retains a high amount of liquidity,” he added.

That said, as the market matures, there is a possibility that even when it comes to legitimate projects, high volatility in crypto markets can cause yields to compress over time much in the same way as with the traditional finance system.

Recent: Terra 2.0: A crypto project built on the ruins of $40 billion in investors’ money

“Users should always assess the degree of risks they are taking when participating in any farm. Look for code audits, backers and team responsiveness on community communication channels to evaluate the safety and pedigree of the project. There is no free lunch in the world,” 0xUsagi concluded.

Market maturity and investor education are key 

Zack Gall, vice president of communications for the EOS Network Foundation, believes that anytime an investor comes across eye-popping APRs, they should merely be viewed as a marketing gimmick to attract new users. Therefore, investors need to educate themselves so as to either stay away, be realistic, or prepare for an early exit strategy when such a project finally implodes. He added:

“Inflation-driven yields cannot be sustained indefinitely due to the significant dilution that must occur to the underlying incentive token. Projects must strike a balance between attracting end-users who typically want low fees and incentivizing token stakers who are interested in earning maximum yield. The only way to sustain both is by having a substantial user base that can generate significant revenue.”

Ajay Dhingra, head of research at Unizen — a smart exchange ecosystem — is of the view that when investing in any high-yield project, investors should learn about how APYs are actually calculated. He pointed out that the arithmetic of APYs is closely tied into the token model of most projects. For example, the vast majority of protocols reserve a considerable chunk of the total supply — e.g., 20% — only for emission rewards. Dhingra further noted:

“The key differentiators between scams and legit yield platforms are clearly stated sources of utility, either through arbitrage or lending; payouts in tokens that aren’t just governance tokens (Things like Ether, USD Coin, etc.); long term demonstration of consistent and dependable functioning (1 year+).”

Thus, as we move into a future driven by DeFi-centric platforms — especially those that offer extremely lucrative returns — it is of utmost importance that users conduct their due diligence and learn about the ins and outs of the project they may be looking to invest in or face the risk of being burned.

Japan passes bill to limit stablecoin issuance to banks and trust companies

The Japanese government is rushing to enforce new stablecoin laws in the aftermath of the Terra collapse.

Japan is moving forward with legislation regarding the issuance of stablecoins, i.e., digital assets with their value pegged to fiat currencies or stabilized by an algorithm. 

On Friday, Japan’s parliament passed a bill to ban stablecoin issuance by non-banking institutions, local news agency Nikkei reported

The bill reportedly stipulates that the issuance of stablecoins is limited to licensed banks, registered money transfer agents and trust companies in Japan.

The new legislation also introduces a registration system for financial institutions to issue such digital assets and provides measures against money laundering.

According to the report, the bill aims to protect investors and the financial system from risks associated with the rapid adoption of stablecoins, which saw its market surging up to 20 trillion yen, or more than $150 billion.

The new legal framework will reportedly take effect in 2023, with Japan’s Financial Services Agency planning to introduce regulations for stablecoin issuers in the coming months.

Related: ​​UK government proposes additional safeguards against stablecoin failure risks

Japan’s stablecoin bill comes in the aftermath of a massive decline on cryptocurrency markets fueled by the Terra tokens collapse, with the algorithmic stablecoin Terra USD (UST) losing its 1:1 value to the U.S. dollar in early May.

The stablecoin market turmoil has not been exclusive to the Terra blockchain as other algorithmic stablecoins like DEI also subsequently lost its dollar peg, plummeting to as low as $0.4 in late May. 

Tether’s reported bank partner Capital Union shares its crypto strategy

Tether stablecoin’s reported bank partner Capital Union supports a large variety of digital assets as part of its trading and custody services.

Capital Union, a Bahamas-based bank that reportedly holds a portion of reserves by the Tether (USDT) stablecoin issuer, has been actively involved in the cryptocurrency industry.

The banking institution has rolled out crypto trading and custody services to its professional clients as part of the bank’s trading desk, a spokesperson for Capital Union told Cointelegraph on Tuesday.

“We work with a few selected trading venues and liquidity providers and a handful of custodians and technology providers, which allows us to support a large variety of digital assets as part of our trading and custody services,” the firm’s representative said.

Capital Union’s crypto-related services still represent a “fairly small portion” of its business, which is mainly focused on providing traditional wealth management and investment services, the representative noted.

The spokesperson did not elaborate either on what cryptocurrencies are supported on Capital Union’s platform or when they were launched, stating:

“We do not have a directional view on crypto markets or on any specific coins but as a forward looking financial institution have chosen to enable our professional clients to trade in this new asset class should they desire to do so.”

According to the representative, Capital Union has also been working actively on developing “transactional blockchain related capabilities” as the bank expects this to be an area of “significant disruption for the financial industry.”

Capital Union’s latest crypto-related remarks follow a Monday report claiming that Tether held some of its reserves at the Capital Union bank. The company’s representative declined to confirm or deny the bank’s involvement in Tether’s operations to Cointelegraph, citing confidentiality reasons. The only publicly available information from the bank is included in Capital Union’s annual reports, the person added.

Related: Stablecoin supplies and cash reserves in question amid crypto exodus

Founded in 2013, Capital Union managed $1 billion of assets by the end of 2020. The bank partnered with Chainalysis in April 2022 to ensure the safe and compliant rollout of its crypto solutions like trading and custody. According to the bank’s spokesperson, the Bahamas was one of the first nations to adopt a regulatory framework known as the DARE Act in 2020.

“As a locally regulated bank, this allows us to offer crypto-related services to our clients, which are financial institutions, financial intermediaries and professional investors,” Capital Union’s representative said.