TheDinarian
News • Business • Investing & Finance
đŸ’„Basel crypto rules: largest banks can have $20bn combined engagementđŸ’„
October 30, 2022
post photo preview

(Dinarian Note: Click on the 1st link and you can read all the submissions from companies, Here is RIPPLES. Mind you, this is a startup company in San Fransisco writing to the Bank Of International Settlements, and YES XRP IS MENTIONED!)

The second crypto-asset consultation by the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision closed at the end of September and it published the feedback received. One of the proposed rules limits the amount of bank cryptocurrency exposures to 1% of Tier 1 bank capital. Some of the feedback concluded that means that most of the world’s largest banks can have a combined $20 billion exposure to crypto-assets. 

The four most restrictive proposed Basel rules

There’s a lot of detail in the proposed Basel rules, but the four most significant issues are:

  1. Cryptocurrency exposures require a dollar-for-dollar set aside of tier 1 capital by banks
  2. Total cryptocurrency exposures are limited to 1% of Tier 1 capital
  3. DLT use for traditional assets attracts a 2.5% surcharge
  4. Cryptocurrency custody also has a dollar-for-dollar capital requirement.

We previously summarized the joint feedback from major trade associations.

Cryptocurrency exposure limit

The combined Tier 1 capital of 21 of the 30 globally systemically important banks (G-SIBs) – excluding nine banks in China, Japan and Switzerland – totals $2 trillion, limiting their combined Group 2 crypto-asset (crytocurrencies) exposure to $20 billion. The crypto market is currently worth more than $950 billion. So together, the banks could have a maximum exposure of 2% to the whole cryptocurrency market.

The CME made a similar calculation, concluding that all its CME Clearing bank member firms could have a combined exposure of $20 billion.

Group 2 crypto-assets have a 1250% risk weighting, which means that banks have to set aside a dollar of capital for every dollar of cryptocurrency exposure. Although some hedging is now accounted for (up to 65%), in the absence of a cap, this would already disincentivize bank exposures.

Societe Generale observed that this “risks cementing control of these markets to non-banking players through excessively burdensome requirements.”

The World Federation of Exchanges and the Deutsche Börse had similar sentiments. “The proposed methodology has no precedent in financial market regulation when comparing it to other economically more volatile and less predictable asset classes (such as other complex financial instruments),” wrote the Deutsche Börse. “Exposure limits on individual asset classes for banks have to the best of our knowledge not even been proposed during the 2008 global financial crisis.”

A few large crypto exchanges also provided responses and they too objected to the cap, despite banks potentially being competition. Institutional adoption is viewed by many as a critical path to crypto-assets becoming mainstream.

Same activity, same risk, same treatment?

As much as the Tier 1 cap on cryptocurrencies was universally slated, so was the 2.5% infrastructure risk addon for Group 1 assets, which covers tokenized traditional assets and extremely conservative stablecoins.

“It is contradictory with the general ‘same activity, same risk, same treatment’ principle, acknowledged by the BCBS, especially for assets belonging to group 1a (tokenized traditional assets),” wrote BNP Paribas.

Societe Generale characterized it as “excessively conservative and lacks evidence-based justification. The use of DLT could lower the level of operational risks in institutions.”

Talking about the 2.5% surcharge on tokenizing conventional assets, the German Banking Industry Committee wrote, “there is a risk that this activity could move from the regulated financial sector to less regulated or completely unregulated sectors. This cannot be intended by the Basel Committee.”

The 2.5% addon “sets a precedent for applying capital penalties for the introduction of new technologies,” wrote the CME, which characterized it as a tax. “The stated aim of the FSB, International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and the BCBS is to achieve a technology-neutral approach to cryptoasset regulation.”

The Deutsche Börse also pointed to the lack of technology neutrality regarding whether the blockchain infrastructure is permissioned or permissionless, because the Basel rules strongly favor permissioned DLT.

Additional burdens on activities that are already regulated

Different types of regulated institutions complained that they are already subject to prudential regulation and hence shouldn’t have additional burdens imposed.

For example, both the CME and CBOE stated that centrally cleared derivatives should be excluded from the 1% of Tier 1 capital exposure limits. 

Fnality, the DLT-based payments infrastructure, believes that the 2.5% DLT addon for tokenized conventional assets should not apply as it already complies with the Principles of Financial Market Infrastructures.

The World Federation of Exchanges asked for crypto-assets traded on regulated exchanges to be treated the same as their traditional counterparts. This especially relates to the 2.5% DLT addon, “particularly when the DLT is managed by an authorised exchange/CCP, which must and does take into account such risks.”

Crypto custody on the balance sheet

In April, the SEC imposed a new accounting rule, requiring crypto-asset custodians to put the assets they custody on their balance sheet. Normally assets owned by the banks’ clients don’t touch the balance sheet. The rule means that for every dollar of cryptocurrency under custody, a bank has to set aside a dollar of capital, which is not a viable business model. State Street described the rule as ‘insane’. The major custodians have all objected to the rule.

As an example, at the end of June 2022, BNY Mellon, the world’s largest conventional custodian, had assets under custody of $43 trillion with $21.8 billion of Tier 1 capital. 

Hence such a rule essentially blocks conventional custodians from participating in cryptocurrency custody beyond a tiny scale.

The first Basel proposal did not take account of custodied assets. But the second proposal published in June stated that crypto-asset exposures also apply to “activities, such as nonfiduciary custodial services, that may only give rise to operational risk.”

The Association of Global Custodians wrote, “Our members do not believe that it’s appropriate for the Committee to use the Second Consultation to redefine the current understanding of the term ‘exposure’ to include assets held in custody.” The American Bankers Association concurred.

Three of the world’s largest conventional custodians, BNY Mellon, State Street and Northern Trust, wrote a combined letter objecting to this, as well as the 2.5% DLT addon for conventional assets and the 1% Tier 1 cap. 

Stablecoins and basis risk

There was a fair amount of feedback about stablecoins. 

Our reading of the proposal is that tokenized bank deposits are considered Group 1a traditional assets as opposed to 1b stablecoins. Stablecoin issuer Circle seemed to think the same, but BNP Paribas asked for explicit clarification.

The proposed Basel rules include some fairly burdensome tests on stablecoins, so it’s unlikely that any current stablecoins would be considered Group 1. Failing that, they become Group 2 with its 1250% risk weighting or dollar-for-dollar capital requirement.

The first test relates to the ability of a user to redeem a stablecoin, and the second is for basis risk. That considers how often a stablecoin has lost its peg recently using a conservative 20 basis points.

Given banks are already prudentially regulated, BNP Paribas believes these tests should not apply to bank-issued stablecoins. The Basel proposals already state that to qualify as Group 1b, a stablecoin has to have a supervisor that imposes prudential capital and liquidity requirements. The proposals state that the Basel Committee is considering replacing the two tests with this supervision requirement.

FTX US made the logical point that if a stablecoin passes the redemption test, then the basis test is irrelevant because a user can redeem the stablecoin if the peg is lost. The redemption risk test is meant to work even in a crisis situation. However, regulators would probably argue that they are intentionally being prudent.

Stablecoin issuer Circle argued that its stablecoin is fully backed by cash and cash equivalents and hence “has reserve holdings that are safer than tokenised deposits, which the BCBS classifies as Group 1a”. It wants to see safely backed stablecoins treated the same as tokenized deposits.

Overall the feedback was more or less consistent in asking for more relaxed rules. The second round of proposals was in some ways more accommodating but considerably more restrictive in other significant aspects.

Shortly before the second consultation round started, the Chair of the Basel Committee Pablo Hernández de Cos, said, “diluting bank capital requirements because of a fear that crypto-asset activities will migrate outside the regulated banking system is not a convincing argument.”

Link

community logo
Join the TheDinarian Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
"The World Order That We Are Coming Into"

If XRP is the neutral bridge for all sovereign currencies, stablecoins, and tokenized assets, then it’s not just facilitating payments, it’s capturing all that value at every level. From smart contracts to tokenized treasuries and digitized assets, XRP forms the foundation and backbone for everything in between.

With cross-border payments representing a multi-trillion-dollar corridor, that’s where the largest capital will flow and the greatest returns will come from.

At this point, you’re the gatekeeper to the digital economy. Everything else follows or fades away once regulations take effect.

You either see it or you won’t until it’s too late.

~The Black Swan Capitalist

00:01:50
Denelle Dixon (Stellar CEO) On Bloomburg 🚀

'Everyone, including Mastercard and Visa, is looking at how this technology can make finance easier for their consumers and their business. I don't think there is going to be a loser, but I do think there will be shake-ups. And ultimately, the consumer is going to win.' - SDF CEO @DenelleDixon on @BloombergTV

00:05:29
We are minutes away from passing the GENIUS Act.
00:01:19
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading
🚀 On-chain Yield Meets Wall Street! 🚀

IXS, in partnership with OpenTrade, has launched the BlackRock High-Yield Corporate Bond Vault—bringing real-world bond yields to DeFi. Here’s why this is a game-changer:

đŸ”č Access BlackRock’s iShares 0–5 Year High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (SHYG) on-chain
đŸ”č Earn up to 8.5% APY, with daily interest accrual and zero fees during promo
đŸ”č Deposit USDC on Avalanche—no brokers, no onboarding delays
đŸ”č Withdraw anytime—no lockups, no gas hurdles
đŸ”č Backed by $6.4B in assets and a 4-star Morningstar rating
đŸ”č Real yield from real bonds, not just simulated returns
đŸ”č Fully tokenized, compliant, and always-on for digital-first investors
đŸ”č Brings institutional-grade fixed income directly to on-chain capital

The future of yield is here: transparent, credible, and powered by the world’s largest asset manager. 💎🌐

https://www.ixs.finance/news/ixs-launches-blackrocks-high-yield-corporate-bond-vault

https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ix-swap/

post photo preview
👀 OBE Master DISCOVERS MASSIVE CITY Underneath GREAT PYRAMID - Scientists CONFIRM! | Darius J. Wright

Darius J. Wright discusses his out-of-body experiences revealing ancient technologies and structures beneath the Great Pyramid, suggesting they were built by the Anunnaki. He describes tunnel systems, tablets encoded with Crystal Light information, and the presence of entities from various dimensions.

Darius emphasizes the pyramids' role in energy manipulation and transportation, using sound and frequency. He also highlights the importance of purifying the body to enhance psychic abilities and achieve true freedom.

The conversation touches on the spiritual implications of these discoveries and the potential for humanity to unlock advanced technologies and achieve higher consciousness.

Timecodes:
0:00 - Episode Teaser
5:35 - How does Darius leave his body?
7:19 - Is astral travel dangerous?
13:36 - Were giant trees real?
16:45 - Are fairies and gnomes real?
21:03 - What’s the purpose of the tunnels?
23:29 - Were pyramids stargates?
26:15 - Who built the pyramids?
27:23 - What’s inside the ...

📚 How to Liquid Stake XPRT and Add Liquidity to stkXPRT/XPRT Pool on Persistence DEX 📚

Dinarian Note: The tutorial shows you how to turn your XPRT into Liquid staked stkXPRT, which can then on top of being staked earn you extra yield via the pools on the Persistence DEX. Note: I put a list of the current pools available below. Check out the APR% on these 😉 This is what makes Defi so attractive to investors. Putting your money to work 101. Instead of just staking your XPRT for 16%, you can put it in a pool and make upwards of 50% or more. Note: These values constantly fluctuate. Even if you don't want to partake in this, it's good practice and extremely good to know! This will be invaluable once your a multi-millionaire, unless you plan on keeping your funds in a criminal run BANK! đŸ€Ł

⚠ If you reside in the USA, you MUST use a VPN. I set it to Singapore and it works just fine! ~ NamastĂ© 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡ The Dinarian


This tutorial will guide you through the process of adding liquidity to the stkXPRT/XPRT pool on Persistence DEX.

Table of Contents:

đŸ”č How to ...

post photo preview
Dubai regulator VARA classifies RWA issuance as licensed activity
Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) leads global regulatory framework - makes RWA issuance licensed activity in Dubai.

Real-world assets (RWAs) issuance is now licensed activity in Dubai.

~ Actual law.
~ Not a legal gray zone.
~ Not a whitepaper fantasy.

RWA issuance and listing on secondary markets is defined under binding crypto regulation.

It’s execution by Dubai.

Irina Heaver explained:

“RWA issuance is no longer theoretical. It’s now a regulatory reality.”

VARA defined:

- RWAs are classified as Asset-Referenced Virtual Assets (ARVAs)

- Secondary market trading is permitted under VARA license

- Issuers need capital, audits, and legal disclosures

- Regulated broker-dealers and exchanges can now onboard and trade them

This closes the gap that killed STOs in 2018.

No more tokenization without venues.
No more assets without liquidity.

UAE is doing what Switzerland, Singapore, and Europe still haven’t:

Creating enforceable frameworks for RWA tokenization that actually work.

Matthew White, CEO of VARA, said it perfectly:

“Tokenization will redefine global finance in 2025.”

He’s not exaggerating.

$500B+ market predicted next year.

And the UAE just gave it legal rails.

~Real estate.
~Private credit.
~Shariah-compliant products.

Everything is in play.

This is how you turn hype into infrastructure.

What Dubai is doing now is 3 years ahead of everyone else.

Founders, investors, ecosystem builders:

You want to build real-world assets onchain.

Don’t waste another year waiting for clarity.

Come to Dubai.

It’s already here.

 

Source

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡  The Dinarian

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
🎬Proof the Deep State Planned This War for Years🎬
Nation First outlines how the Israeli attack on Iran was planned by the Deep State and the Military Industrial Complex over 15 years ago.

Prepare to have your mind blown

~NamastĂ© 🙏 Crypto Michael ⚡ The Dinarian

Dear friend,

What just happened in Iran wasn’t a surprise attack. It wasn’t a last-minute decision. It wasn’t even Israel acting alone.

It was a war plan written years ago — by men in suits, sitting in think tanks in Washington and New York. And yesterday, that plan was finally put into action.

Here’s the truth they don’t want you to know: this war was cooked up long before Trump ever became President — and it was designed to happen exactly this way.

Let’s start with what just happened.

Israel launched a massive, unexpected strike on Iran. They hit nuclear facilities. They killed military generals. They struck deep inside Iranian territory — and now the whole region is on edge, ready to explode into full-blown war.

The media is acting shocked. But I’m not. You shouldn’t be either.

Why?

Because we have the documents. They told us this was coming. Years ago.

Exhibit A: The Brookings Institution.

The Brooking Institution is a fancy name for what’s basically a war-planning factory dressed up as a research centre. Back in 2009, Brookings published a report called Which Path to Persia?

It laid out exactly how to get the U.S. into a war with Iran — without looking like the bad guy.

Here’s the sickest part:

“The United States would encourage — and perhaps even assist — the Israelis in conducting the strikes
 in the expectation that both international criticism and Iranian retaliation would be deflected away from the United States and onto Israel.”

Let that sink in.

They literally suggested using Israel to start the war, so America could stand back and say, “Wasn’t us!”

They even titled a chapter of this report: “Leave It to Bibi” — naming Netanyahu as the guy to light the match.

Exhibit B: The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

The Council on Foreign Relations is an another Deep State operation. Also in 2009, CFR published a “contingency memo” that laid out the whole military plan for an Israeli strike on Iran — step by step.

  • What routes the jets would fly (over Jordan and Iraq).

  • What bombs they’d use (the biggest bunker-busters in the U.S. arsenal).

  • Which Iranian sites to hit (Natanz, Arak, Esfahan).

  • And how Iran might respond (missiles, drones, threats to U.S. bases).

It’s like they had a time machine. Because those exact strikes just happened following the routes, likely using the bombs and hitting the sites that the CFR outlined.

Exhibit C: The Plot to Attack Iran by Dan Kovalik.

This one really blows the lid off.

US human rights lawyer and journalist Dan Kovalik, in his book The Plot to Attack Iran: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Iran, shows how the CIA and Israel’s Mossad have been working together for decades — not just watching Iran, but actively sabotaging it. Killing scientists. Running cyberattacks. Feeding lies to the media to make Iran look like it’s always “six months away” from building a nuke.

He even reveals how they discussed false flag attacks — faking an Iranian strike to justify going to war. That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s documented strategy.

And here’s where President Trump comes in.

Unlike the warmongers who wrote these plans, Trump wasn’t looking to bomb Iran. He wanted to talk. Negotiate. Make a deal — like he did with North Korea.

In fact, peace talks with Iran were just days away.

But someone didn’t want peace. Someone wanted war.

So Israel went in — just like the Brookings script said — and lit the fuse.

Trump didn’t authorise it. He didn’t want it. But they gazumped him. They went around him. And now, the peace he was trying to build has been blown to bits.

This was never about Iran being a threat. It was about keeping the war machine fed.

Think tanks, defence contractors, foreign lobbies — they don’t profit from peace. They thrive on tension. On fear. On war.

And now, thanks to them, the world’s one step closer to the edge.

If you’ve never trusted the mainstream media, you’re right not to.

If you’ve ever suspected there’s a shadowy agenda behind every war, you’re not paranoid.

You’re paying attention.

Because the documents are real. The war was planned. And the bombs are falling — right on schedule.

Pray for Iran’s civilians.

Pray for the Israelis caught in the crossfire.

Pray for a President who still wants peace.

And pray that we wake up before it’s too late.

Because the war has started.

But the truth has just begun to spread.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen

Source:

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”

— George Christensen.

Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 The Dinarian

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
The Possible Impact Of USDC On The XRP Ledger And RLUSD
Key Points
  • It seems likely that USDC on the XRP Ledger (XRPL) boosts liquidity, benefiting XRP, though some see it as competition for RLUSD.
  • Research suggests both stablecoins can coexist, enhancing the XRPL ecosystem.
  • The evidence leans toward increased network activity being good for XRP, despite potential competition.

The recent launch of USDC on the XRP Ledger has sparked discussions about its impact on the ecosystem, particularly in relation to RLUSD, Ripple's own stablecoin. This response explores whether this development is more about competition for RLUSD or if it enhances liquidity on the XRPL, ultimately benefiting XRP.
 

Impact on Liquidity and XRP

The introduction of USDC, a major stablecoin with a $61 billion market cap, likely increases liquidity on the XRPL by attracting more users, developers, and institutions. This boost can enhance DeFi applications and enterprise payments, potentially driving demand for XRP, the native token used for transaction fees. While some may view it as competition for RLUSD, the overall effect seems positive for the XRPL's growth.
 

Competition vs. Coexistence with RLUSD

USDC and RLUSD cater to different needs: USDC appeals to those valuing regulatory compliance, while RLUSD, backed by Ripple, may attract users preferring ecosystem integration. Research suggests both can coexist, increasing options and fostering innovation, rather than purely competing.
 

Detailed Analysis of USDC on XRPL and Its Implications

The integration of USDC on the XRP Ledger (XRPL), announced on June 12, 2025, by Circle, has significant implications for the ecosystem, particularly in relation to RLUSD, Ripple's stablecoin launched in 2024. This section provides a comprehensive analysis, exploring whether this development is more about competition for RLUSD or if it enhances liquidity on the XRPL, ultimately benefiting XRP.
 

Understanding RLUSD and Its Role

RLUSD, Ripple's stablecoin, received approval from the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in 2024 and is designed to be fully backed by cash and cash equivalents, ensuring stability. It is available on both the Ethereum and XRP Ledger blockchains, aiming to enhance liquidity, reduce volatility, and serve cross-border payments. With a current market cap of $413 million, RLUSD is smaller than USDC's $61 billion but has regulatory credibility, particularly appealing to institutions.
 

Impact of USDC on the XRPL

The launch of USDC on the XRPL is a significant development, given its status as the second-largest stablecoin by market cap.
 
Key impacts include:
  • Liquidity Boost: USDC's integration can attract more users, developers, and institutions, increasing overall liquidity. This is crucial for DeFi applications, as Circle's announcement emphasizes its use in liquidity provisioning for token pairs and FX flows.
  • Increased Utility: USDC enhances the XRPL's utility for enterprise payments, financial infrastructure, and DeFi, potentially making it more attractive for global money movement and transparent settlements.
  • Regulatory and Institutional Appeal: As a regulated stablecoin issued by Circle, USDC can bring institutional users to the XRPL, aligning with Ripple's goals for regulated financial activities.
  • Network Growth: Supporting a widely recognized stablecoin like USDC on 22 blockchains, including the XRPL, increases the network's visibility and adoption, potentially driving more activity.

Competition vs. Complementarity with RLUSD

While USDC's launch could be seen as competition for RLUSD, the evidence suggests a more nuanced relationship:
  • Competition: Both are stablecoins on the XRPL, and USDC's larger market presence ($61 billion vs. RLUSD's $413 million) might attract users and developers away from RLUSD. However, competition can drive innovation, such as lower fees or better services, benefiting the ecosystem
  • Complementarity: Different stablecoins cater to different needs. USDC appeals to users valuing regulatory compliance and widespread adoption across multiple blockchains, while RLUSD, backed by Ripple, may attract those preferring ecosystem integration and regulatory approval from NYDFS. The XRPL can benefit from having multiple options, increasing liquidity and fostering a diverse ecosystem.
  • Coexistence Benefits: Research suggests that having multiple stablecoins enhances liquidity and provides users with more choices, potentially leading to higher network activity. For example, institutions might use USDC for global payments and RLUSD for specific XRPL-integrated applications, creating a symbiotic relationships.

Impact on XRP

The introduction of USDC, alongside RLUSD, is likely beneficial for XRP, the native token of the XRPL, for several reasons:
  • Increased Liquidity and Activity: Higher liquidity on the XRPL, driven by both stablecoins, can increase transaction volumes. XRP is used for transaction fees, with some fees burned, potentially reducing supply over time and increasing demand.
  • DeFi and Enterprise Use Cases: Both USDC and RLUSD enhance DeFi and enterprise applications, such as liquidity pools and cross-border payments, which can drive demand for XRP as a settlement token.
  • Network Growth: A more liquid and active XRPL is more attractive to developers and users, potentially leading to long-term growth for XRP, as increased utility can drive its value.
Expert analyses, such as those from u.today and ledgerinsights.com, suggest the launch is a "massive boost" for liquidity and adoption, with RLUSD also playing a significant role.
 

Comparative Analysis: USDC vs. RLUSD

To further illustrate, consider the following table comparing key attributes:
 
Given the evidence, it is more accurate to view the introduction of USDC on the XRPL as beneficial for liquidity, which is ultimately good for XRP, rather than solely as competition for RLUSD. The XRPL benefits from increased options, with both stablecoins enhancing liquidity, utility, and network growth. While some competition exists, the overall impact is positive, fostering a robust ecosystem that can drive demand for XRP. This conclusion aligns with expert analyses and community discussions, acknowledging the complexity of the stablecoin market within the XRPL.
 

🙏 Donations Accepted 🙏

If you find value in my content, consider showing your support via:

💳 PayPal: 
1) Simply scan the QR code below đŸ“Č
2) or visit https://www.paypal.me/thedinarian

🔗 Crypto – Support via Coinbase Wallet to: [email protected]

Or Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

Your generosity keeps this mission alive, for all! NamastĂ© 🙏 The Dinarian

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals